STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. PYARELAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of two writ petitions (W.P. No. 807 & 2042 of 2001), both of them arising out of common award dated 11-12-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jagdalpur in Case No. 1/1997/Industrial Disputes Act Reference. Writ Petition No. 807 of 2001 has been filed by the State/employer, assailing legality and validity of impugned award dated 11-12-2000, whereas other Writ Petition No. 2042 of 2001 has been filed by the Workman, aggrieved by part of award, by which, back wages has been denied.

(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to this petition is narrow in compass. The respondent No. 1 was an employee on daily wages basis with the petitioners. Against his retrenchment, alleged to be in violation of 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dispute was raised, which led to reference of dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide impugned award dated 11-12-2000 (Annexure P-2) directed reinstatement of the workman, though, without back wages. It is this award which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Labour Court acted beyond its jurisdiction because the State is not an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that only on this ground, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the learned Labour Court without there being any material evidence, oral or documentary, to establish that the workman continuously worked for 240 days in the year preceding termination mechanically ordered reinstatement. Lastly, it is contended that in any case, even if the workman has been retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement is not automatic and in such circumstances, the Labour Court ought to have awarded lump sum compensation as the workman was only daily wage employee. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the State/petitioners relied upon the decision in the case of Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another, 2008 1 SCC 575 and Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 4 SCC 261.