Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Raj vs Judge Labour Court Kota And Or on 13 November, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3378/2009 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Kota & Ors.) Date of Order : 13th November, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.K.Verma, Addl.GC - for the petitioner/s. Mr.Deepak Goyal, for the respondent/s. BY THE COURT:
With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to award dated 09.04.2008 passed by labour Court, Kota. The State of Rajasthan was served with the notice but did not appear. They neither filed reply nor led evidence. The learned labour Court adjudicated the matter based on evidence led by the respondent workman. Finding respondent's working for nearly three years, the action of State Government to terminate his service was held to be illegal.
Learned counsel for the State submits that respondent-workman was never engaged directly by them but through a contractor namely Mahesh Kumar Yadav. He was party to litigation before the Court below but did not appear. When there is no contract between the State and respondent workman, the award deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid ground itself. The finding recorded regarding working days of the respondent has also been challenged.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and find that no reply or evidence was led by the State Government to controvert the fact given and proved by the respondent workman. Even if plea taken by the petitioner regarding engagement of workman through Mahesh Kumar Yadav on contract basis is taken note of, position of State is not improved. It is in view of the definition of given under the Rajasthan Amended Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry (by an employer or by a Contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer) to do any skilled or unskilled, skilled manual, supervisory. Technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dis rule, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dis rule, but does not include any such person........
The perusal of definition shows that if someone is engaged through contractor, would a workman, accordingly even if respondent was engaged through Mahesh Kumar Yadav, he is a workman as per the definition under ID Act and thereby discontinuance in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act becomes fatal.
So far as question as to how many days, the respondent workman has worked is concerned, sufficient evidence was led and appreciated by the Court below. Thus, I am unable to accept any of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner State.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent workman may now be reinstated in service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If he is reinstated in service within aforesaid period, then learned counsel for the respondent agrees to forgo wages up to one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order from the date of award. However, if the respondent workman is not reinstated, as directed above, he would be entitled to the wages from the date of award. It is made clear that if appeal is not preferred against this order and stay is granted, any lethargy on the party of officer concerned for implementation should result in recovery of benefit payable to the workman from the salary of the officer concerned.
The application under Section 17B of the ID Act has not been pressed in view of disposal of this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.69 Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.