Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raghuvir Singh vs The Judge Labour Court And Ors on 29 July, 2022
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5230/2006
Raghuvir Singh S/o Lokman Singh, resident of Bhuda Darwaja
Deeg, District Bharatpur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Judge Labour Court, Bharatpur.
2. Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, Division Deeg, District Bharatpur Rajasthan.
3. Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, Sub Division Deeg, District Bharatpur
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta with
Mr. S.S. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, Addl. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Judgment Reserved on 06.07.2022
Judgment Pronounced on 29.07.2022
1. Present writ petition is filed with a prayer for issuing writ or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 18.04.2006 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur and for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity in service w.e.f. date of termination, with consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that in the year 2001, State Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Bharatpur for adjudication of the following terms:-
"Whether the Workmen Raghuvir Singh (Petitioner) had worked for 240 days during the period of 12 months prior to (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:56:37 AM) (2 of 4) [CW-5230/2006] termination of his services by the respondents No. 2 and 3 his employer? If yes, whether termination of the services by his employer w.e.f. 1.9.90 is proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled."
3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, after considering the case of the petitioner, held that he has worked for a period from 10.05.1990 to 30.05.1990, 01.06.1990 to 30.06.1990 and thereafter in August and September 1990 and accordingly he was given due payment. It is also reflected from the impugned order that on the basis of Annexure-3 and Annexure-4, the learned Presiding Officer has inferred that petitioner was working as typist with respondents and therefore he was rendering services different from other persons like labour Mr. Jagmohan and Mr. Lal Singh, who are said to be juniors to the petitioner. It is also held by the learned court that the petitioner voluntarily left the job in the year 1990 and applied for re- appointment only in the year 1992 and not in between. Inspite of the fact that respondent did not act upon his 1992 re-appointment application, the petitioner did not raise any dispute till the year 1995. Considering the said facts, and by relying upon authorities of various courts, the learned tribunal has held that provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Act) are not applicable qua the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the court to the pronouncement of judgments of this court in Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sawaimadhopur Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Tribunal, Jaipur (Rajasthan) reported in 2002(1) W.L.C. 296 and S.B. CWP No.660/2004 titled as Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D. Vs. Suresh Chand (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:56:37 AM) (3 of 4) [CW-5230/2006] Sharma & Ors. decided on 10.05.2004, wherein it was held that as per provisions of Section 25H of the Act, dispute can be raised at any time/point. Learned counsel has submitted that as per provisions of Section 25G of the Act, the employer is duty bound to give adequate notice of retrenchment and an agreement has to be drawn and rule of "last come first go" will be applicable. It is further submitted that the fact that workman worked for less than 240 days will not prejudice the claim of the petitioner. In the given case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither any agreement in terms of Section 25G was arrived at nor any opportunity of re-employment was provided as per Section 25H, therefore, in light of above judgments, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the petition and reiterated the impugned order.
6. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, analyzed the judgments cited at Bar and scanned the record of the writ petition.
7. In the case in hand, it is an admitted case that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days and as such provisions of Section 25F of the Act will not be applicable. Qua the arguments made and reliance placed upon the judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court Aravali Kshetriya (supra) & Suresh Chand Sharma (supra) and the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act this court is of the opinion that it is not a case of retrenchment, instead is a case of voluntarily leaving the work by the petitioner in the year 1990, which can be confirmed from the fact that the dispute was raised at a belated stage, after five years, in 1995 and never before. The petitioner, as required under (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:56:37 AM) (4 of 4) [CW-5230/2006] Section 25G of the Act, does not belong to a particular category of workman in the establishment. The petitioner was working as a typist which is not refuted. Therefore, the argument of junior and senior persons being recruited and regularized and applicability of Section 25G of the Act does not come into play.
8. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days, and has voluntarily left the respondents in the year 1990, it cannot be said that the present case is of retrenchment. The belated action of raising dispute in the year 1995, after five years, also confirms the said fact.
10. In light of above, the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act are not applicable and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/9 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 03:56:37 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)