STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State against the Award of Labour Court, Jodhpur dated January 22, 1993 directing the appellant to reinstate the second respondent Kishna Ram Bishnoi with consequential benefits.

(2.) At the instance of second respondent Kishna Ram Bishnoi (hereinafter referred to as "workman"), a reference was made to the State Government. Workman filed the statement of claim stating that in the year 1982, he was engaged as Helper in village Karda-Diga Water Supply Project. In the year 1985, he was given status of work charged employee. He was being paid a sum of Rs. 5487- per month. However, abruptly by order dated October 19, 1987, he was removed from service. A reply was filed on behalf of Asstt. Engineer, PHED, Sub-Division, Raniwada, Distt., Jalore. It was averred that workman was appointed as Assistant in the year 1982. He was given duty on water pump. He was not regularly attending the duty, as such, a notice was given to him on June 4, 19S4. He was given status of work charged employee in the year 1985. He was entrusted with the job of Chowkidar. He did not improve his work and, therefore, he was transferred from village Karda to village Raiseen on Water Supply Project by order dated May 14, 1987. He did not report at Raiseen. He was given notices one after another i.e. on May 20, 1987, May 26, 1987, May 28, 1987, June 6, 1987 and October 9, 1987 but he did not respond to any of these notices. The workman was found to be habitual absentee and as such, he was removed from service on October 19, 1987. The termination was found to be bad by the Labour Court, on the ground that no enquiry was held.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Labour Court has committed error in setting aside the order of termination only on the ground that no inquiry was conducted. It is also submitted that workman was given notice which was not accepted by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice Rule 27 of the Rajasthan PWD (B & R) Including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1964"). It provides that a habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days, shall be treated as misconduct. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Honble Apex Court reported in State of Punjab and others v. Jit Singh and others, AIR 1997 SC 29 : 1996 (10) SCC 162.