Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurVikas Adhikari, Ps Bhadra vs . Munna Lal & Anr. on 29 September, 2015Author:Sandeep MehtaBench:Sandeep MehtaS.B.Civil Writ Petition No1646/1999
                                       Vikas Adhikari, PS Bhadra Vs. Munna Lal & Anr.
                               1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

                           ORDERS.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1646/1999
                  Vikas Adhikari, PS Bhadra
                             Vs.
                      Munna Lal & Anr.Date of order             :               29.9.2015

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.Manish Patel, AGC, for the petitioner.
Mr.Narpat Singh, for the respondents.<><><>


     By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner

Panchayat Samiti Bhadra through its Vikas Adhikari has

approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the

award dated 26.5.1998 passed by the Labour Tribunal,

Bikaner in Labour Case No.107/94, whereby the Labour

Tribunal accepted the claim filed by the respondent workman

Shri Munna Lal and declared the termination of his services by

the petitioner Panchayat Samiti by order dated 31.7.1987 to

be illegal as having been effected in violation of the

mandatory provisions of theIndustrial Disputes Act. The

petitioner Panchayat Samiti was directed to reinstate the

respondent in service without backwages.This Court by an interim order dated 3.7.1999, stayed

the operation of the impugned award.I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and have gone through the material
                                                     S.B.Civil Writ Petition No1646/1999
                                       Vikas Adhikari, PS Bhadra Vs. Munna Lal & Anr.2available on record.Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point

out any significant or material illegality or perversity in the

impugned     award.    The   Labour        Tribunal,        after        detailed

appreciation of the material available on record, came to a

conclusion that the respondent workman had been appointed

in the Panchayat Samiti on daily wages against a sanctioned

post of Class IV employee. He worked with the Panchayat

Samiti between 17.6.1986 to 30.7.1987. The workman proved

his engagement with the petitioner by documentary as well as

oral   evidence.   Admittedly,       the     mandatory               procedure

prescribed inSection 25(F)of the Industrial Disputes Act was

not followed by the petitioner Panchayat Samiti before

terminating the respondent workman from service. The period

of the workman's engagement was definitely more than 240

days in the year preceding his illegal retrenchment. The

finding recorded by the Tribunal that the workman performed

duties as a daily wager in the petitioner Panchayat Samiti for a

continuous period of 240 days preceding his termination is

based on a just and proper appreciation of the material

available on record. It is undisputed that before terminating

the workman from service, the mandatory procedure as

prescribed underSection 25Fof the Industrial Disputes Act

was not followed by the petitioner Panchayat Samiti. In this

background, the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in
                                                   S.B.Civil Writ Petition No1646/1999
                                     Vikas Adhikari, PS Bhadra Vs. Munna Lal & Anr.3declaring the termination of the workman as amounting to

illegal retrenchment.However, this Court is of the firm opinion that the

Tribunal was not at all justified in directing that the workman

be reinstated in service. As per the admitted case of the

parties, the workman performed duties with the Panchayat

Samiti barely for a period of 240 days between 17.6.1986 to

30.7.1987, whereas the claim was filed almost after 7 years of

his alleged illegal retrenchment.In this background, and keeping in view the ratio of the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

BSNL Vs. Bhurumal reported in 2014 AIR SCW 528, the

impugned award dated 26.5.1998 passed by the Labour

Tribunal, Bikaner deserves to be modified. The direction to

reinstate the respondent workman in service is patently illegal

and unjust and thus, cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and while

modifying the award dated 26.5.1998 passed by the Labour

Tribunal, Bikaner, the direction to reinstate and take the

respondent workman back in service, is hereby quashed and

set   aside.   The   respondent     employee           shall        be       paid

compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the tune of Rs.2 lacs

with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the award till

reimbursement. The compensation amount as directed above

shall be paid to the respondent workman within a period of
                                                S.B.Civil Writ Petition No1646/1999
                                  Vikas Adhikari, PS Bhadra Vs. Munna Lal & Anr.4three months from the date of this order failing which the

interest shall stand enhanced to 9% per annum.No order as to costs.(SANDEEP MEHTA), J./tarun/