RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD Vs. KAJOD MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions, award passed by the labour Court on October 23, 1996 directing reinstatement of the Respondent-workmen with full back wages and continuity in service, is under challenge.

(2.) Respondents-workmen were engaged by the Petitioner on consolidated wages of Rs. 400/- per month to discharge the duties of Gardener. Their services were discontinued from January 31, 1989. Reference was made by the appropriate government on the question whether termination of their services by the Petitioner was illegal and valid, and if not, what relief are they entitled to? Labour Court in both the cases declared action of the Petitioner in terminating their services w.e.f. January 31, 1989 illegal and held them entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service with full back wages. It was directed that they would be entitled for salary at the prevalent rate.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the labour Court was wholly unjustified in rejecting argument that Respondents were engaged on contract basis. Learned Counsel in this regard referred to the document Exhibit M/1, extract of which, mentioned in para 11 of the award is that Secretary of the Rajasthan Text Board in that communication clearly stated that the Respondents-workmen were engaged on contract basis for plantation of trees and watering the plants etc. on payment of consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month initially for a period of three months which period was later on extended. Copy of this letter was endorsed to both the workmen. Labour Court was therefore not justified in concluding that this was a unilateral decision on the part of the Petitioner and that the Respondents-workmen had not consented to their appointment being contractual in nature. Learned Counsel submitted that nature of appointment was fully accepted by the workmen without any objection or murmur. Workmen did not produce any evidence to show that they were engaged on regular basis or that their appointment was not on contract basis. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was absolutely no justification for directing reinstatement of the Respondents because their services were terminated on January 31, 1989 and they were not engaged on any sanctioned regular post and that award was passed on October 23, 1996. Counting from the date, now more than 21 years have gone by then therefore, also, there was no justification to now require the Petitioner to reinstate. In any case, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Petitioner that one of the workmen, Shri Panchu Ram (in SBCWP No. 314/98) has expired.