Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2157 (RAJ)

Sitaram v. Labour Court No. 2

2017-10-06

AJAY RASTOGI, DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2017
ORDER : 1. Instant intra-Court appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge impugned dated 12.07.2016. 2. However, office has pointed out delay in filing appeal in support thereof separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act. 3. After taking note of the submissions made, we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained & deserves to be condoned. 4. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. The appellant-workman as allegedly worked on daily wages as Chowkidar from 26.07.1982 and his services were terminated on 18.11.1984. Indisputably the industrial dispute was raised by him after six years in the year 1990. At the initial stage, the State Government declined to refer the matter for adjudication by Labour court vide order dated 04.02.1991. Later on, it was referred for adjudication and the labour court found that the workman employee was appointed as a daily wager Chowkidar on 26.07.1982 & retrenched on 18.11.1984 without due compliance of the mandate under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act 1947") for which he was neither served with notice nor paid compensation in lieu thereof and answered the reference in affirmative directing his reinstatement without back-wages and that came to be challenged by the employer in writ petition and that was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2006, that was subject matter which challenged in the special appeal at the instance of the employer in D.B. Special Appeal No. 400/2006 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and the matter was remitted to the ld. Single Judge to decide the matter after considering all the grounds raised before him in accordance with law vide order dated 27.10.2014. 6. Thereafter, the matter was again heard by the ld. Single Judge and while upholding the finding of action of retrenchment being in violation of Sec-25F of the Act 1947 considered it appropriate to mold the relief and granted compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement of Rs. 2,00,000/- keeping in view the service rendered by him as a daily wager & also the period of unemployment till the order was passed by the ld. Single Judge dated 12.07.2016 & that is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. 7. 2,00,000/- keeping in view the service rendered by him as a daily wager & also the period of unemployment till the order was passed by the ld. Single Judge dated 12.07.2016 & that is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. 7. It was not the case of the appellant either before the labour court or before the ld. Single Judge of this Court that for the period he worked as a Chowkidar as daily wager, any person, if working or appointed on daily wage basis after him has either been regularized or granted semi-permanent status under the Work Charge Rules,1964 and action being in violation of Sec.-25F of the Act 1947 in the given facts & circumstances that he had worked as a Chowkidar on daily wage basis from 26.07.1982 to 18.11.1994 and remain out of employment for 33 years & it meets the ends of justice if in lieu of reinstatement he is being paid adequate compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under order impugned dated 12.07.2016. 8. Mr. Baig, ld. counsel for the appellant has tried to persuade this Court that once the finding to this effect being affirmed by the ld. Single Judge, of the action being in violation of Sec.-25F of the Act,1947 reinstatement is the only consequence under the given facts & circumstances and granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement is an exception and no reasons are assigned by the Ld. Single Judge and submits that the workman deserves reinstatement as he is fighting for his legitimate cause in various forums as provided to him under the law & further submits that any delay or laches at least can't be attributed to him and in the given facts & circumstances, the relief which has been molded by the ld. Single Judge under order impugned dated 12.7.2016 awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement deserves interference by this Court. 9. Single Judge under order impugned dated 12.7.2016 awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement deserves interference by this Court. 9. As we have noticed that it was never the case of the appellant-workman that any person either working or appointed as daily wager after his engagement on 26.07.1982 has either regularized or granted semi-permanent status, in absence of any positive action being taken by the authorities of any workman appointed as a daily wager no right was conferred and in the given facts & circumstances that he remained out of employment for almost 34 years and worked for 02 years on daily wage basis till 18.11.1984, it has considered it appropriate to mold the relief and award compensation in lieu of reinstatement after remain unemployment for 34 years, we find no error being committed by the ld. Single Judge while passing the order impugned dated 12.7.2016 which may call for interference. 10. Consequently, the appeal fails & is hereby dismissed.