Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was further held that the plea of the appellant herein that he had abandoned his services is not correct. It was further held that the termination of the workman does not come within the purview of any of the exceptions contemplated under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act', for short). It was however, opined that the appellant failed to comply with the requirements contained in Section 25G of the Act read with Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short) as also Section 25H thereof.

Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the recruitment and termination of Respondent being on daily-wage basis, Sections 25G and 25H of the Act have no application in the instant case. It was further submitted that workman having voluntarily abandoned his services, the Labour Court wrongly opined that he was retrenched from service.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that Sections 25G and 25H of the Act stand on a different footings, vis-`-vis, 25F thereof, in so far as, for the purpose of invoking the said provisions, it is not necessary that the workman must complete a continuous service of 240 days within a period of twelve calendar months preceding the order of termination as envisaged under Section 25B of the Act.

Section 25H provides for re-employment of retrenched workman, which will apply in case where the employer proposes to take into employment any person, an opportunity has to be given to him to offer himself for re-employment.

The State of Rajasthan has framed Rules known as Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958.

Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules prescribes the procedure in which seniority list in the particular category of workman was to be maintained. Rule 78 postulates re-employment of retrenched workman.

Yet again recently in Regional Manager, SBI vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari [(2006) 1 SCC 530], this Court followed Central Bank of India (supra), stating :

"Section 25G provides for the procedure for retrenchment of a workman. The respondents have correctly submitted that the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act do not require that the workman should have been in continuous employment within the meaning of Section 25B before he could said to have been retrenched."

We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that there had been a violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an Award of re-instatement with entire back wages. This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under Section 11A must be exercised judiciously. The workman must be employed by a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. Respondent had not regularly served Appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if instead and in place of re- instatement of his services, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded to Respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments. [See State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Ghyan Chand (Civil Appeal No.3214 of 2006, disposed of on 28th July, 2006.] This appeal is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. There shall be no order as to costs.