Jharkhand High Court
The Management Of Electrical Executive ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 19 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2007(3)JCR260(JHR)]
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 14 of 1994 directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 with full back wages and all other consequential benefits including regularization of service.
2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication:
Whether Sri Dilip Kumar Prasad was appointed as Typist Clerk by Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification-cum-Supply Division, Tenughat? If so, whether the termination of service of Sri Prasad from 21.5.91 is proper? If not, what relief he is entitled to?
3. The grievance of respondent No. 2 workman was that his termination was void ab initio for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Labour court found that he worked between 1.1.1989 till 21.5.1991 as Typist Clerk and that he was retrenched from service without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.
4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 2 was a Typist in Tenughat court and he was paid remuneration on the basis of the work taken from him. He did not bring on record his letter of appointment and/or any document to show that he was appointed after following the procedure known to law against any vacant post. Therefore, the finding the Labour court that respondent No. 2 was appointed with effect from 1.1.1989 is perverse. Respondent No. 2 was not a workman and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(oo) and Section 25F of the Act were not attracted. Relying on--Branch Manager M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and another v. Shri S.C. Pandey 2006 (2) Supreme 349 he submitted that even if it is assumed that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act, the Labour court could not order for reinstatement with full back wages including regularisation. He further submitted that in any event petitioner has been paid Rs. 300/- per month from February, 2003 as per the interim order passed in this case in terms of Section 17B of the Act.
5. Counsel for respondent No. 2 workman supported award.
6. After hearing the parties and going through the materials brought on record, I am satisfied that the award has to be set aside. There is nothing on the record to show that petitioner was appointed against any vacant post, after following the procedure of appointment and by competent authority. Even if it is assumed that petitioner was temporarily engaged for about two years and his services were dispensed with without following Section 25F of the Act, at best the termination could be held to be illegal and for that the Labour Court could not have directed his regularisation and reinstatement with full back wages. The judgment of Shri S.C. Pandey (Supra) fully supports the petitioner.
7. It is not denied that petitioner has been paid about Rs. 15,000/- in terms of Section 17B of the Act which is sufficient compensation for the alleged violation of Section 25F of the Act.
8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. However, no costs.