Rajasthan v. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department

Judgment

2. The Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur Rajasthan The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/09/2025

1. Laying challenges to award dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur whereby reference in respect of termination of service of the petitioner has been answered against the petitioner-workman, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages on 06.10.1987 and thereafter, he rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a calendar year but without following the procedure contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he was terminated from the services by respondents. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved by the [2025:RJ-JP:37665] (2 of 5) [CW-18454/2013] termination order, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.825/1989 before this Court, however, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.1995 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial disputes as per the provisions of Act of 1947 which was ultimately referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even before the Labour Court, by way of filing statement of claim as well as producing evidence, the petitioner has successfully established that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination, yet only on the basis of erroneous assumptions and untenable finding, it has been observed that since after termination of the services of the petitioner, he did not raise industrial disputes immediately and rather chose to file writ petition before the High Court, therefore, it would be treated that the petitioner-workman had himself abandoned the services and it was not a case of retrenchment/termination of services. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings are totally irrational, perverse as well as against the material on record. In the instant case, where it is admitted that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner, nor was there any compliance as prescribed in the Section 25F of the Act of 1947 as well as Rule 77 & 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 therefore, the termination order was illegal and was liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement along with all consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:37665] (3 of 5) [CW-18454/2013]

4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents in order to support the impugned award and it was submitted that the findings arrived at by Labour Court are factual in nature and the scope of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very very limited and no interference can be made in the factual finding given by the Labour Court. It is submitted that merely proving working for more than 240 days in a calendar year is not sufficient for attracting the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and it was required for the petitioner to prove that his services were terminated on account of overt-act of the respondents but in the instant case, the petitioner himself had voluntarily abandoned his services, hence, no error whatsoever has been committed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in deciding the reference against the petitioner.

6. Heard and considered. Bare perusal of the award dated 12.06.2012, it is clear that the petitioner has produced sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination in the year 1988. The sole question which arises for consideration of this Court is, as to whether not raising industrial dispute immediately and opting to file writ petition would lead to an inference that the petitioner had abandoned his services and was not terminated by the respondents. The answer is obvious, in the instant case, where only after a few days from the date of termination of the petitioner, he approached this Court by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, his intention to raise protest against the termination was clear and it cannot be said that not availing the alternative remedy [2025:RJ-JP:37665] (4 of 5) [CW-18454/2013] at the relevant time would lead to an inference that the petitioner had himself left the services. The presumption so drawn by the Labour Court in the impugned award is totally based on surmises and conjectures and the findings are perverse. Since, the award dated 12.06.2012 is based upon such perverse findings, hence, this Court deems it proper to quash and set aside award to the extent of such findings. As the respondents utterly failed to prove compliance of statutory provisions, hence, termination of petitioner was illegal.

7. However, the second question which arises is of relief for which the petitioner is entitled even after declaring the termination of his services as illegal.

8. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was never appointed pursuant to any regular recruitment process or after following the Rules. He was simply engaged as a daily wager in an irregular manner and had hardly worked for just more than one year and that too in the year 1988 i.e. around 37 years back. Under these circumstances, the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to the petitioner in the light of recent judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, since the termination order has been held to be invalid by this Court, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

9. In the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr. SLP (Civil) No.20902/2024, decided on

29.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down formula that in the cases, where termination has been held illegal, the workman would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs per year for the period he has worked. Since, in the instant [2025:RJ-JP:37665] (5 of 5) [CW-18454/2013] case, petitioner has worked hardly for one year, therefore, he would be entitled for compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs. The impugned award dated 12.06.2012 is modified to the extent.

10. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, in view of above direction. DIVYA /42 (ANAND SHARMA),J