Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj. & Anr vs Hari Singh on 2 January, 2014
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.953/2003
State of Rajasthan
vs.
Hari Singh & Anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.953/2003
State of Rajasthan
vs.
Hari Singh & Anr.
Date of Order : 02.01.2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr Vimal Kishore Mathur, for the petitioner
Mr Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment and award dated 07.01.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara (for short 'the labour court' hereinafter) in Labour Case No.81/1996, whereby the labour court while answering the reference has held that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the respondent-workman from the post of Helper on 01.07.1991 is illegal and the respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.953/2003 State of Rajasthan vs. Hari Singh & Anr.
2 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute, while alleging that he was employed on the post of Helper by the petitioner- department on 01.05.1990 and remained in its employment up to 30.06.1991. However, on 01.07.1991, his services were terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter).
When the conciliation proceedings were failed, the appropriate Government made a reference to the labour court to the effect that whether the action of the Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sub-Division Mandal, District Bhilwara in terminating the services of the workman on 01.07.1991 was valid and proper, and if not, then the workman is entitled for what relief?
The respondent-workman had filed the statement of claim before the labour court and the petitioners filed reply to the same.
The labour court, after hearing the counsel for the rival parties and taking into S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.953/2003 State of Rajasthan vs. Hari Singh & Anr.
3 consideration the material produced on record by the parties, has held that the respondent- workman was in continuation of the employment of the petitioner from 01.05.1990 to 30.06.1991 and completed 240 days in one calendar year, whereas the petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent- workman without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned judgment and award, while claiming that the respondent-workman was not in the employment of the Office of the Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sub-Division, Mandal, District Bhilwara for the entire period and had worked in the different sub-divisions and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had completed 240 days in one calendar year under the one employer i.e. the Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sub-Division, Mandal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that the finding of the labour court S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.953/2003 State of Rajasthan vs. Hari Singh & Anr.
4 to the effect that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days in one calendar year under the one employer is contrary to the material available on record and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the witness of the petitioner Ganpat Lal Kothari had admitted before the labour court that before 1994, Asind and Mandal Sub-Divisions were under the Assistant Engineer, Mandal only. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman has, therefore, argued that the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-workman was under the employment of the different employers is not tenable and is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman has further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the labour court and, therefore, no case for interference is made out.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned award.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.953/2003 State of Rajasthan vs. Hari Singh & Anr.
5 The labour court has taken into consideration the arguments of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days in one calendar year under one employer and observed that the witness of the petitioner had admitted that before the year 1994, Asind and Mandal Sub- Divisions were under the Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Mandal and has given a finding that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days in one calendar year under one employer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Asind and Mandal Offices of P.H.E.D. were not under the Assistant Engineer, Mandal in the year 1991 when the services of the respondent-workman were terminated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to controvert the finding given by the labour court to the effect that prior to 1994, Asind and Mandal Sub-Divisions were under the Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Mandal only.
It is noticed that the labour court has also observed that the respondent-workman in his affidavit has clearly asserted that S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.953/2003 State of Rajasthan vs. Hari Singh & Anr.
6 before terminating the services of the respondent-workman, he was not served with any notice or paid a month's salary and the petitioner has failed to controvert the said assertion of the respondent-workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the writ petition, has also failed to satisfy this Court that before terminating the services of the respondent-workman, the petitioner had given a month's notice and paid salary in lieu of that to the respondent- workman. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award.
Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-