Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chairman Raj State Pollution vs Shri Naurat Mal Gurjar Ors on 5 December, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
1-Civil Writ Petition No.12158/2010 Raj. State Pollution Control Board Versus Naurat M.Gurjar & Anr 2-Civil Writ Petition No.11906/2010 Raj. State Pollution Control Board Versus Ravi S.Sharma & Anr 3-Civil Writ Petition No.16058/2010 Raj. State Pollution Control Board Versus Sushil Singh & Anr 4-Civil Writ Petition No.16059/2010 Raj. State Pollution Control Board Versus Mohar Singh Gurjar & Anr 5-Civil Writ Petition No.12955/2011 Raj. State Pollution Control Board Versus Mohd. Saheed Khan & Anr Date of Order ::: 05/12/2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Akhil simlote, for petitioner (Board-Employer) Mr. Sunil Samdaria for respondents (CW-12158/10 & 11906/2010) Mr. Amin Ali for respondents (CW-16058/10, 16059/10, & 12955/11) All the petitions at joint request since involve common questions were heard together and are being disposed of by present order.
These petitions are directed against different Awards passed by Labour Court, Jaipur whereby respondents-Workmen were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service alongwith back wages mentioned below holding that since each of the workmen completed 240 days in preceding 12 months; and their termination was held in violation of S.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act").
Respondent-workmen were appointed in the establishment of the petitioner-Board on consolidated wages and continued in service upto dates mentioned below from which their services were terminated, came up for adjudication pursuant to References made vide notifications ad infra:
Name of workman respondent in Civil Writ Petition No. & the post held Date of Reference made for adjudication Date of Appointment as per workman and Termination Back wages Date of Award passed of Labour Court Jaipur
1. Naurat Mal Gurjar (CW-12158/2010) (Lower Division Clerk) 29/04/2002 14/03/1996 / 31/03/1999 50% 30/06/2010
2. Ravi Shankar Sharma (CW-11906/2010) Lower Division Clerk 12/11/2002 01/09/1996 / 31/03/1999 50% 30/06/2010
3. Sushil Singh (CW-16058/2010) Class IV Servant 12/01/2004 08/06/1998 / 31/03/1999 30% 04/08/2010
4. Mohar Singh Gurjar (CW-16059/2010) Class IV Servant 03/01/2004 01/12/1996/ 31/03/1999 30% 04/08/2010
5. Mohd. Sayeed Khan (CW-12955/2010) Driver 29/12/2000 19/02/1997/ 31/03/1999 30% 16/06/2011 It is relevant to record that after service of notice was duly affected upon petitioner-Board, reply was filed but no one appeared before the Labour Court to cross examine witnesses of the workmen and opportunity for cross examination was closed vide order dt.29/08/2008 and since no one appeared on behalf of petitioner Board, their defence was also closed by the Labour Court vide order dt.16/11/2008; as such there was no defence having come on record on behalf of petitioner Board.
However, the workmen filed their own affidavits in support of their claim and taking note of material on record, Labour Court recorded finding that each of the workmen completed more than 240 days in preceding 12 months, and since petitioner employer failed to comply with requirements U/Ss 25-F, 25-G, & 25H of ID Act, and in view thereof, termination of the workmen was held to be in violation of S.25-F of ID Act and accordingly answered Reference in affirmative in favour of each of the workmen vide Awards impugned, directing the employer (petitioner) to reinstate each of the workmen with continuity of service alongwith back wages mentioned (supra).
Counsel for petitioner Board submits that reply filed by the Board (employer) before Labour Court certainly disclosed the effective working of each of the workmen but that was not looked into by the Labour Court while passing the Awards impugned holding action of petitioner Board in violation of S.25-F of ID Act.
Counsel further submits that even if action of petitioner Board (employer) was in violation of S.25-F, still onus was on the workman that he was not in any gainful employment during intervening period, for which Labour Court awarded back wages which is not legally sustainable.
Counsel for respondents workmen while supporting the finding recorded by the Labour Court under Awards impugned, jointly submit that the Awards impugned do not warrant any interference and the finding recorded therein is based on the evidence having come on record.
The workmen in their affidavits filed on record before the Labour Court specifically deposed about their working in the petitioner-Board's establishment beyond 240 days preceding 12 months of their termination and since there is no evidence on record in rebuttal on behalf of petitioner (employer) - taking note thereof, the finding of fact recorded by Labour Court holding action of the employer (petitioner) terminating services of workmen in violation of S.25-F of ID Act and this Court finds no manifest error in the finding recorded under Awards impugned which may warrant interference.
At this stage, Counsel for respondents-workman jointly submit that they have instructions to inform as regards the back wages awarded by Labour Court that they are ready to forego the back wages impugned provided they are reinstated with continuity of service pursuant to Awards impugned.
Consequently, writ petitions are partly allowed and the Awards impugned to the extent of back wages are set aside. However, Awards impugned for reinstatement of each of the workmen (respondents herein) with continuity of service are upheld. Petitioner Board is directed to comply with Awards passed in favour of each of the workmen as observed (supra) and the workman will be entitled for their wages from the date they are reinstated in service and not from the date prior thereto.
Before parting with order, this Court would like to record that the OIC of the department or any other defaulting officer who has not taken care of the matter appropriate disciplinary action may be initiated against him. No costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p5/ 12158CW2010(5)Dec5-IDAct-25F.do