Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahesh Chand Saini vs Executive Engineer on 8 January, 2016
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1286/2014 Mahesh Chand Saini Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division Beawer & Ors.
Date : 8-1-2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka Mr. C.P. Sharma Adv., for appellant.
Mr. J.M. Saxena Additional Advocate General for State.
Instant special appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge dt.10-4-2014.
As per own case of the workman set up before the Tribunal he was engaged as a casual worker and worked for the period from 1-11-1987 to 31-5-1988 indisputably had not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months which could make him entitled to seek protection of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (Act,1947) and the specific job assigned to him was of laying down the pipeline under the Bisalpur project which was not of perennial nature and not engaged against a sanctioned post and the kind of job assigned to him being co-terminus with the project for which he was engaged certainly he could not have been allowed to continue any further.
When the dispute was raised by the workman, a reference made by the Appropriate Government and the learned Tribunal based on the material on record observed that at least Sec.2(oo)(bb) of the Act,1947 may not be invoked but at the same time the workman was able to satisfy that there was violation of Sec.25G & 25H of the Act,1947 and even if one has not worked for a period of 240 days in the preceding 12 months he could invoke the provisions of Sec.25G & 25H of the Act,1947 but looking to the nature of job which was discharged by the workman and the fact that he had not worked even for a minimum of 240 days in the preceding 12 months that makes him entitled to seek protection of Sec.25F of the Act,1947 and the learned Labour Court while exercising its judicial discretion passed the award of reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages.
When the award being assailed before the learned Single Judge, without disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court under the impugned award the learned Single Judge was of the view that it may meet the ends of justice in the given facts & circumstances if the workman is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1 Lakh in lieu of reinstatement, relying on certain decision of the Apex Court.
Counsel for appellant submits that since there was violation of Sec.25G & 25H of the Act,1947 and that finding has not been disturbed even by the learned Single Judge under order impugned he is entitled for reinstatement and not for compensation in lieu thereof as being considered and held by the learned Single Judge under order impugned order and in support of submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal, (2014)7 SCC 177 & Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company Limited Vs. Mackinnon Employees Union, (2015)4 SCC 544.
The judgments (supra) on which appellant's counsel placed reliance may not be of any assistance to him for the reason that the cases referred to are the matters where the workman had worked for sufficient long time and there was violation of Sec.25F of the Act,1947 along with 25G & 25H of the Act,1947 and in the given facts and circumstances the Apex Court was of the view that if the large number of persons have been retained and others have been lateron regularized under the scheme are entitled for reinstatement obviously if there is violation of Sec.25F along with 25G & 25H of the Act,1947 in the instant case, violation of Sec.25F of the Act,1947 could not be established by the workman as he had not worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months regarding violation of sec.25G & 25H of the Act,1947 they were engaged in the project as a casual worker which was co-terminus with the nature of job assigned and there was no sanctioned post against which one was engaged in service and few of the workmen were disengaged at the later stage but not a case of regularization in service, in totality of the matter the learned Single Judge considered it appropriate that even if there was violation of Sec.25G & 25H of the Act,1947 it may meet the ends of justice if the workman is awarded a sum of Rs.1 Lakh in lieu of reinstatement which will compensate him and modified the award accordingly under order impugned.
After we have heard counsel for the parties, we do not find any error being committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for our interference in the instant intra court appeal.
Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(J.K. Ranka), J. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS/ Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Vijay Singh Shekhawat/PA