Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1395 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh Bhati v. Rajasthan Housing Board

2015-07-24

GOVIND MATHUR, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Jaishree Thakur, J. This appeal has been filed under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 7.4.2015. 2. The appellant herein was appointed as Computer Data Entry Operator on 26.4.1999 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 3000/- for a period of 180 days. Thereafter by an order dated 21.10.1999, the services of the appellant were further extended for a period of six months and again extended on 19.4.2000. He continued in service for a period of more than five years and thereafter his services discontinued. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2004 removing him from service, raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate authority. Vide Notification dated 15.9.2005, the appropriate authority referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Jodhpur. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal wherein the workman challenged his removal on the grounds that his services had been terminated without any valid reason and that there was noncompliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). It was contended that no notice nor any compensation as required under Chapter V of the Act of 1947 was paid. 3. A detailed reply was filed to the claim petition wherein it was stated that the workman was appointed on the basis of the Computer Data Entry Operator on contract basis. Since the services were no longer required, the services of the workman were terminated vide order dated 31.3.2004 and that the order of termination was sent by the peon to be served upon the appellant along with the letter No. 3207 dated 31.3.2004 enclosing the demand draft No. 014443 of Rs. 13,500/-(being honorarium for the month in lieu of notice and compensation payable under Section 25F of the Act of 1947) at the residential house of the workman on 31.3.2004. Since the appellant was not available at his residential house, the same was offered to his mother who refused to accept the same. Thereafter, it was sent by speed post on 1.4.2004 at the residential address of the workman but the same was returned with the remark that the addressee is not available in the house. Despite repeated visits on 2.4.2004, 4.4.2004, 5.4.2004 and 6.4.2004, the letter and Demand Draft remained unserved. Thereafter, it was sent by speed post on 1.4.2004 at the residential address of the workman but the same was returned with the remark that the addressee is not available in the house. Despite repeated visits on 2.4.2004, 4.4.2004, 5.4.2004 and 6.4.2004, the letter and Demand Draft remained unserved. It was again sent by Registered Post(AD) to the workman which was received back unserved on 17.4.2004. It was contended that there was sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. 4. The Labour Court, after going through the pleadings, documents and evidence, reached to the conclusion that the employer did not comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and held the termination to be illegal and directed reinstatement of the workman but without any back wages. The award of the Labour Court was challenged in this High Court by the employer, namely, Rajasthan Housing Board wherein it was contended that there was compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition holding that the petitioner-Board had been able to establish that there was compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 when the Board remitted the draft of one month's salary period along with retrenchment compensation on the same date as the letter of termination. Aggrieved against this, the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, find that there is no merit in the appeal filed. 6. The question that needs to be determined is whether there was compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 or not ? Section 25F of the Act of 1947 mandates that the workman is required to be paid compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof. The respondent-Board prepared a draft of Rs. 13,500/- towards one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice period and the retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F(b) of the Act of 1947 accompanied by a termination order which were sent with a peon to the workman's residence on 31.3.2004 itself. This has been entered into the copy of the peon book which is part of the record. 13,500/- towards one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice period and the retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F(b) of the Act of 1947 accompanied by a termination order which were sent with a peon to the workman's residence on 31.3.2004 itself. This has been entered into the copy of the peon book which is part of the record. The respondent-Board made every effort towards service of termination order accompanied by the Demand Draft but the appellant adopted all tactics to frustrate the same, including return of the notice that was sent through Speed Post and Registered Post. The act of sending the termination order as well as the Demand Draft through a peon or by post was in compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, but it is the appellant who played hide and seek with view to frustrate the service of the retrenchment order and the Demand Draft. Thus, the appellant cannot try and take any benefit claiming non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. The learned Single Bench has gone into the matter and has rightly held that there has been compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1947 while terminating the services of the workman. 7. We find no error in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench and the same is affirmed. The appeal of the appellant being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.