Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1267 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Industrial Tribunal

2015-07-08

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner PHED department for quashing the award dated 11.01.2012 whereby, the Judge, Labour court, Jodhpur passed an award in favour of respondent workman and set aside the order of termination dated 01.06.1998 so also passed an order to grant semi permanent status to the respondent workman with 40% salary from the date of reference which is 18th October, 2004. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was engaged for a limited period on job basis, therefore, it cannot be said that any relation of master and servant was existing when he worked in the office of petitioner but learned Judge, Labour court, Jodhpur gave erroneous finding of appointment to respondent by petitioner department, therefore, the finding arrived at by the Judge, Labour court, Jodhpur is totally erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that if this Court comes to the conclusion that finding with regard to illegal termination is sustainable in law, then also, respondent workman is not entitled to reinstatement in service because industrial dispute was raised by him after gross delay of five years therefore, award impugned may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Judge, Labour court because the respondent workman worked in the office of petitioner department for near about eight years and salary was paid to him but his services were terminated without compliance of Section 25F (a) & (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Judge, Labour Court after taking into consideration entire evidence fact and on record gave finding that termination of the respondent workman is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, no interference is called for in the award dated 11.01.2012 for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also argued that as per workcharge rules, the respondent workman was entitled for semi permanent status after completion of two years of service in the year 1991 because he was initially appointed on 01.07.1989, therefore, the Judge, Labour court has rightly passed an award for declaring the respondent workman semi permanent after completion of two years of service after reinstatement in accordance with Workcharge rules which were prevailing at the time when workman was provided appointment. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the award impugned and finding given by the Judge, Labour court, Jodhpur. It is not in dispute that respondent workman was appointed on 01.07.1989 under the sanction issued by the Government but only question raised by the petitioner that mode of appointment was not on daily rate basis, more so the respondent workman was engaged on job basis, therefore, as per counsel for the petitioner, there was no relationship of master and servant in between the petitioner department and respondent workman. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid argument has already been rejected by the Judge, Labour court, Jodhpur on the basis of documentary evidence which is evident from the finding given by the Labour court. It is not in dispute that respondent workman was working in the petitioner department but only question is whether mode of appointment was on daily rate basis or on job basis. Upon said ground, a clear finding is given by the Judge, Labour court on the basis of evidence and documents that respondent was appointed, therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by the Judge, Labour court does not require interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the finding is accepted that termination was illegal or in violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act then also respondent workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service because he raised the industrial dispute after delay of five years, therefore, in view of reinstatement, compensation may be awarded to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the finding is accepted that termination was illegal or in violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act then also respondent workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service because he raised the industrial dispute after delay of five years, therefore, in view of reinstatement, compensation may be awarded to him. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent workman worked under the petitioner department from July, 1989 to February, 1997 for near about eight years, then it will be very harsh to deny the benefit of reinstatement in service because his services were terminated without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, so also his case was not considered for semi permanent status in year 1991 inspite of the fact that he had completed two years of service. In view of above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.