Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maval Bank Limited vs Hari Shanker Joshi & Ors on 18 November, 2013
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
(1) S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3944/2000
Maval Lamps (Mini Bank) Limited, Maval
Versus
Hari Shanker Joshi & Ors.
(2) S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3050/2000
Hari Shanker
Versus
Executive Officer, Sirohi Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Sirohi & Ors.
Date of Order : 18.11.2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Girish Sankhala for the petitioner
Mr. D.K. Parihar for the respondent-workman
BY THE COURT :
In pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, this matter came up for its adjudication in the spirit of Lok Adalat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the workman is not at all entitled for compensation awarded by the Labour Court; hence, no compromise in this matter can be arrived.
Be that as it may, I have examined the merits of the case. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appropriate [2] government by its notification dated 22.12.1992 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that "Whether the termination of workman Mr. Hari Shanker Joshi S/o Mr. Dharm Datt Joshi, resident of Mawala by his employer Executive Officer, Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sirohi and the President, Mawal Lamps (Mini Bank) Limited, Mawal with effect from 04.01.1990 is just and valid ? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled ?
As per the facts stated in the statement of claim, the workman remained in the employment of the employer from 15.10.1985 to 04.01.1990, but he was discontinued from service without assigning any reason. The workman alleged violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947').
The employer while meeting with the claim made averred in its written statement that the appointment of the workman was void ab initio and the resolution employing him too was rescinded by the competent authority while exercising powers under Section 32 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.
The Labour Court after considering the material [3] available on record arrived at the conclusion that the workman was in continuous service of the employer, therefore, his retrenchment was illegal, however, instead of reinstatement, the Labour Court awarded a compensation in tune of Rs.15,000/-.
From perusal of the facts averred in the award impugned, it reveals that an appointment was accorded to the workman as a casual employee with effect from 15.10.1985. He remained in service till 04.01.1990. The resolution giving appointment to him was subsequently rescinded, but prior that that he completed the required service, as such, the finding given by the Labour Court with regard to continuous service of the workman is not at all in dispute. The respondent-workman may had been employed under a resolution that was rescinded subsequently, but that in no manner prevents the employer from making compliance of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1947, as such, I do not find any wrong with the award impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-employer is dismissed. The award dated 06.08.1999 passed by the Labour Court is affirmed. The other writ petition preferred by the workman with a prayer to declared the award dated 06.08.1999 bad to the extent it [4] denies him reinstatement in service.
Having considered all the facts of the case and also looking to the fact that the appointment of the workman was bad from the inception and he ultimately was retrenched in the year 1990 itself, I do not find any just reason now to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the workman too is dismissed. However, the workman shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.3,000/- against the litigation charges. The Labour Court awarded the compensation with interest, but looking to all the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to enhance the same by a sum of Rs.25,000/- including interest.
[GOVIND MATHUR],J.
Pramod