Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Municipal Board,Rajsamand vs Judge,Labour Court,Udaipur & Anr on 23 August, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.125/2006 MUNICIPAL BOARD, RAJSAMAND VS.
JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, UDAIPUR & ANR.
Date of order : 23.8.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. Yashwant Mehta, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the respondent.
<><><> By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Municipal Board Rajsamand, has approached this Court being aggrieved of the award dated 27.4.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court Udaipur in Labour Case No.94/1999.
The respondent workman Kailash Singh approached the Labour Court for raising a labour dispute against the alleged illegal retrenchment of his services by the petitioner Municipal Board by order dated 1.9.1993.
The Tribunal accepted the workman's claim and held his termination to have been carried out in gross violation of the 2 mandatory requirements of Section 25F and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and after setting aside the order of termination, by its award dated 27.4.2005 directed that the workman shall be reinstated in service with 30% back wages.
Being aggrieved of the said award, the employer, Municipal Board has approved this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
Shri Yashwant Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner Board vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed grave error in facts as well as in law while accepting the workman's claim and directing his reinstatement because the respondent-workman did not work with the Municipal Board for a continuous period of 240 days. He, further, urged that the retrenchment compensation and salary in terms of Section 25F of the Act was forwarded to the respondent workman through a Demand Draft No.94956. The workmen deliberately avoided to accept the draft. As per him, retrenchment of the workman was carried out after due compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the Tribunal was totally 3 unjustified in discarding the defence set up by the petitioner Board and setting aside the termination order of the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement. He, further, urged that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that persons junior to the respondent workman were retained and their services have been regularized is also factually incorrect. He, therefore, urged that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award should be set aside.
Per contra, Shri Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the respondent workman vehemently contended that the fact regarding the respondent workman having worked with the petitioner Municipal Board for a period well in excess of 240 days was not disputed before the Tribunal. He urged that the very circumstance that the petitioner Board itself, though belatedly attempted to offer retrenchment compensation and salary of 3 months to the respondent-workmen through Demand Draft dated 1.3.1994 establishes its acquiescence to the fact that the workman was retrenched after having served the Board for a continuous period in excess of 240 days. He urged that by virtue of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, it is 4 mandatory to give one month's notice and to pay the retrenchment compensation and salary of 3 months to the workman before taking the drastic action of retrenchment. The payment has to be made simultaneously with the retrenchment. However, even as per the admitted case set up by the petitioner Board, the demand draft for a sum of Rs.1,320/- was forwarded to the workman after nearly 6 months of his retrenchment. He also placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.753/2009 (Keshu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.754/2009 (Narayan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) filed by two similarly situated workmen viz. Keshu Lal and Narayan Singh, wherein this Court observed that the services of Dinesh Chandra Sharma and Moti Lal Kumawat (having lesser service tenure) were regularized by the petitioner Board after retrenching those writ petitioners. He, thus urged that the impugned award is perfectly lawful and was passed in consonance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the action of the petitioner Board in terminating the workman's services being in gross violation 5 of the provisions of Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H was rightly struck down. Thereafter, he urged that no interference is called for in the impugned award.
I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award and the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Board has not disputed the fact that the respondent workman worked with the employer for a period in excess of 240 days. The workman was appointed as a daily wager by the petitioner Board on 1.7.1990 and his services were terminated on 1.9.1993. The fact that the requirement of Section 25F was not complied with, was virtually acquiesced, inasmuch as, the draft towards retrenchment compensation and 3 months salary was forwarded to the workman after more than 6 months of his retrenchment. Section 25F mandates that no workman who is employed in any industry who has been in continued service for not less than 1 year under employer shall be retrenched until, he has been given one month's notice in writing incorporating the reasons for retrenchment 6 and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice; and the workman has been paid retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner did not even set-up a case before the Tribunal that notice of one month was given to the workman or the wages for the notice period offered to him in terms of Section 25F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act or that the retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of the retrenchment. It was, further, not disputed by the petitioner's counsel that two similarly placed workmen Dinesh Chandra Sharma and Moti Lal Kumawat, who were junior to the respondent in length of service, were retained and thereafter, their services have also been regularized in the Board.
In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned Tribunal was totally justified in discarding the defence setup by the petitioner. The respondent employee was retrenched after having worked with the petitioner Board for a period well in excess of 240 days without following the mandatory requirements of Section 7 25F, 25G & 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act whereas, persons junior to him were retained in service.
The impugned award whereby the claim of the respondent was accepted while setting aside the illegal order of retrenchment and directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman in service with 30% back wages and continuity in service cannot be termed to be illegal, perverse or arbitrary by any stretch of imagination, so as to call for interference in the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, thus, being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected.
The Board shall forthwith, reinstate the respondent in service with 30% back-wages and continuity in service.
No order as to costs.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/