STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Anr. v. THE JUDGE, I.T. & LABOUR COURT, UDAIPUR & Anr.

HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Durga Ram, for the petitioner/s. Mr. Ravindra Singh, for the respondent/s. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 25.1.1997 passed by learned Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case No.95/1992. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this petition for writ is that the appropriate government by notification dated 10.10.1992 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Udaipur in the terms “Whether the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Panchayat Samiti Bagadora was right in terminating its employee Shri Magan Lal S/o Heera Lal w.e.f. 14.11.1991 and if not, then what relief and amount, the workman is entitled?” The workman in his statement of claim submitted that he was in continuous service of the employer from 15.5.1990 to

14.11.1991, but he was retrenched from service without adhering the mandatory condition precedent for a valid retrenchment as prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial { 2 } Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter). The employer refuted the allegations, however, on basis of the evidence available on record, the Labour Court reached at a definite finding that the workman was in continuous service of the employer in a preceding one year from the date of his retrenchment i.e. 14.11.1991. Accordingly, the reference was answered by holding the retrenchment of workman w.e.f

14.11.1991 not just and valid. A direction was also issued for reinstatement of the workman in service with all consequential benefits including back wages. While challenging the award, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court erred while determining the term of employment of the workman. It is also stated that the appointment was given to the petitioner without taking any regular vacancy, as such, he was not at all entitled to continuous in service, therefore, he was terminated from service. Learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, also stated that in pursuant to the award impugned, the workman has already been reinstated and the back-wages as awarded has also been paid to the workman. However, other consequential benefits have not been extended because of pendency of the petition for writ. Hard learned counsel for the parties. { 3 } The finding given by the Labour Court that the workman was in continuous employment of the employer within preceding year from the date of his retrenchment is a finding of fact and that is based on the evidence and other material available on record. Such finding of fact, if not perverse, is not open to be interfered by this Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any material on basis of that it can be said that the finding given by the Labour Court is perverse that may warrant interference of this Court. So far as the issue regarding availability of vacancy is concerned, suffice it to mention that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the only requirement is existence of relationship of the workman and employer and the status of the workman is not dependent on availability of sanctioned post. It is not in dispute that the respondent was working with the petitioner-employer and he is a workman, as such, while effecting retrenchment, the employer should have adhered the condition precedent prescribed under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and those have not been adhered by the employer. In such circumstances, I do not find any wrong with the award impugned. The petition for writ, therefore, is having no merit, same is dismissed. rm/ (GOVIND MATHUR)J.