STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RANA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners State of Rajasthan and its Assistant Engineer have challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 5. 12. 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the Labour Court ordered the petitioners to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 50% back wages from the date of reference i. e. 28. 2. 1996.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri Kotwani for the petitioners firstly submitted that the Labour Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the services of respondent workman was terminated in violation of Sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that the respondent workman himself left the Job and it is a case of abandonment of service. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court be set aside.

(3.) AT this stage, Mr. Kotwani submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2), be considered and dealt with. That was a case of daily wager and the case was regarding completion of work. In absence of work, on facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the workman had no right to be reinstated in service. I fail to understand that how this judgment will have any application to the facts of present case. In the instant case, the point regarding completion of work was never pressed into service by the petitioners before the Labour Court, therefore, there is no finding whatsoever in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. However, an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to submit that this point was specifically argued. When asked, Mr. Kotwani pointed out ground no. (iii) of the petition. This ground is totally different. What is stated in ground (iii) is that it was the specific case of the petitioner Department before the Labour Court and in their reply. It is not sufficient that one may raise number of contentions in reply, but the requirement of law is that the contentions raised in reply must be argued and the attention of the concerned court must be drawn and the presiding officer of the court must be called upon to deal with and decide such contentions. If they are not argued then petitioners cannot be permitted to raise such contentions for the first time in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.