Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Astt.Engineer Phed Beawar vs Bhagwan Singh ( Since Deceased ) & Ors on 16 March, 2010
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4934/1997. The Assistant Engineer PHED, Beawar. Versus Bhagwansingh & Anr. Date of Order:- March 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Chetan Bairwa, Additional Government Counsel. Shri Amit Dhawan for respondent No.1. ***** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner-The Assistant Engineer PHED, Beawar against the award dated 17/12/1996. On an application of the respondent-workman, reference of Industrial Dispute was made to the Labour Court, Ajmer for adjudication of the question whether removal of respondent No.1 Bhagwansingh by the petitioner on 30/5/1989 was valid or not and if not, to what relief he is entitled for? Labour Court held that petitioner violated provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules 77 & 78 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules and therefore directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 with continuity in service but without any back wages. It may be noted at the outset that respondent No.1 expired during the pendency of the writ petition on 26/5/2004 therefore this writ petition is now being contested by his legal representatives.
2) Shri Chetan Bairwa, learned Additional Government Counsel has argued that labour court was wholly unjustified in holding violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules 77 & 78 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules. It was contended that respondent-workman was engaged for a particular work of putting the new pipelines in Beawar City and after the work was over, there was no need of his continuity. It was also argued that respondent-workman on his own attended the duty after 3/8/1988. Respondent-workman did not perform 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his date of termination and the labour court upheld this contention that his working was proved only for 172 days. Labour Court could not issue direction for reinstatement of the respondent-workman unless there is violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules 77 & 78 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules. In any case, now respondent-workman has expired, there can be no direction for his reinstatement. Statements of the witnesses produced by the management have to be correctly appreciated by the labour court. It was clearly proved from the evidence that respondent-workman left the work on his own and when he left, there can be no question of violation of Section 25H either.
3) Shri Amit Dhawan, learned counsel for respondent-workman has opposed the writ petition and submitted that workman never left his job and it was the petitioner who discontinued his service and retrenched him. In paras 5 and 6 of the pleadings, labour court found that petitioner stated that workman was retrenched due to non-availability of working whereas, witnesses produced by them stated to the contrary. Learned counsel submitted that it was Assistant Engineer Shri Rajkumar Hitani with whom respondent-workman was working. Labour Court found from the pleadings of the petition that new workmen were engaged after termination of services of respondent-workman and that no seniority list was prepared in terms of Rules 77 and 78 at the time of retrenchment.
4) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that in view of the contradictions in the evidence that was produced by the petitioner, labour court was justified in not accepting the plea of the petitioner that the workman has left the job on his own. It has rightly held it to be a case of illegal termination however, at the same time, labour court found violation of Section 25H. On the basis of the evidence that was adduced before the labour court, a finding was recorded that Section 25H and Rules 77 & 78 have been violated. However, at the same time, direction of the labour court for reinstatement of the respondent-workman could not be justified who now in any case cannot be continued in view of the fact that he expired on 26/5/2004. Ends of justice would be met if the direction of the labour court is suitably modified by requiring petitioner to make payment of reasonable amount of Rs.75,000/- to the legal representatives of reasonable amount of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of full and final settlement of all the claims.
5) With the above, the writ petition is allowed in part.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
ani