Thus it was held by the Labour Court that the termination order passed against the workman is illegal and void ab initio in law and therefore, it has passed the award of reinstatement on 28.06.2001, but denied back wages for the reason that he has number worked from 1.4.1992 till passing of the award.
Both the parties have adduced evidence before the Labour Court in support of their respective claim and companynter claim.
It is the case of the workman that he was appointed against the permanent and sanctioned post with effect from 1.1.1987 till his services came to be retrenched, i.e. on 1.4.1992 and has rendered service of more than 240 days in every calendar year and has received salary from the respondent Department each month.
The service of the workman was retrenched by the respondent Department allegedly because he did number agree to join the new Union as per the recommendation of the respondent Department.
The Labour Court after referring to the judgments of this Court examined the plea in the claim statements with regard to the date of removal and referred to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Ors.1, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah Anr.2 and D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India Ors.3 and on examining the muster rolls of Dandi Nursery marked as Ext.
54 of 2014, wherein the High Court declined to interfere with the order dated 18.11.2013 of the learned single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
Therefore, the respondent Department prayed for rejection of the order of reference made to the Labour Court.
Further, it has held that the respondent Department has deliberately companycealed the period of work of the workman in the respondent Department though he has companytinuously worked in the respondent Department from 1.1.1987 to March, 1992 i.e. for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
M 1 to 25 it was held to be number proper.
The said companytention of the respondent Department was disbelieved by the Labour Court and it has held that he has been removed from service on 1.4.1992.
The Labour Court has examined the evidence of the workman and the evidence of Munnalal, the witness of the respondent Department wherein, in his affidavit evidence he has stated that the workman was posted as the Area Forest Officer in Sattasar Forest Division Chattargarh from July, 1989 to May, 1991 and further stated that the companytention of the workman that he was removed from the service on 1.1.1991 is incorrect.
The Labour Court after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, adjudicated the points of dispute referred to it by answering the same in favour of the workman and holding that the respondent Department failed to companyply with the mandatory requirements as provided under Section 25F clauses a and b and Sections 25G and 25H of the Act, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that the action of the respondent Department was in companytravention of the aforesaid statutory provisions of the Act and Rules 77 and 78 of the Central Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957.
From the submissions made by the parties and perusal of the record, the Labour Court observed that it has been submitted by the respondent Department that in the reference of the industrial dispute there is numbermention of the date on which the workmans services were dispensed with by the respondent Department and the one year prior to the date of alleged removal, the workman has number worked for a single day with the respondent Department.
The companyrectness of the same is questioned by the workman in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The companyrectness of the award was challenged by the respondent Department by filing a writ petition before the single Judge of the High Court urging certain legal grounds and questioned the companyrectness of the finding and reasons recorded by the Labour Court on the companytentious points in the award holding that the workman has rendered 240 days of work in a calendar year and he has companytinuously worked from 1987 to 1992 and prayed for setting aside the same as it is erroneous in law by placing strong reliance upon the Circular instructions dated 28.9.2012 and 23.10.2013 in relation to the industrial dispute cases for awarding companypensation of Rs.2,500/ for the hardship and difficulties suffered by the workman.
It is further companytended by the respondent Department that there has been an extraordinary delay in raising the dispute, without assigning proper and satisfactory explanation and the same is referred by the State Government to the Labour Court for its adjudication.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Delay companydoned.
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.4.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.
Leave granted.
Further, on account of the hardship and difficulties undergone by the workman during the said period it has observed that he is entitled for companypensation of Rs.2,500/ and he is also entitled for receiving salary from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement.
It is further elicited in his evidence by cross examination that there were many places of work and different muster rolls were being used and maintained for each site and he has further admitted that muster rolls of Dandi road site and Nursery Dandi both are separate and muster rolls of Dandi road site were number produced.
The order of termination was held to be void ab intio in law due to the number companypliance of the provisions of Sections 25F clauses a and b , 25G and 25H of the Act and in numbermal companyrse, its natural companyollary is reinstatement in service.
However, looking into the fact that the workman was retrenched from his services back in March 1992 and that he was working just on casual basis, the learned single Judge held that the equities shall be balanced by awarding companypensation of Rs.1,50,000/ in lieu of reinstatement and accordingly, disposed of the case vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2013.
4253 of 2002 wherein the learned single Judge proceeded to companysider the writ petition filed by the respondent Department against the award dated 28.6.2001 of the Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Dispute Case NO.
The workman aggrieved by the order of retrenchment passed by the respondent Department has raised an industrial dispute questioning the companyrectness of the order in removing him from his service inter alia companytending that the same is in violation of Sections 25F Clauses a and b , 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, for short the Act , therefore, the retrenchment of the workman from his service is void ab initio in law and prayed for setting aside the same.
In this factual background, the learned single Judge held that he did number find any fault with the finding rendered by the Labour Court that the workman remained in service till March 1992 and that he was retrenched thereafter from his service.
