STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RATI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the award dated 29.5.2000, where reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman. It is stated that respondent-workman was engaged as daily rated employee and worked hardly for few months in breaks. The termination of the respondent workman is held to be illegal being violative of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity in service and 60% back wages by ignoring the nature of appointment. Counsel submits that an employee not engaged as per the rules rather worked only on daily rated basis on muster-roll, has no right of reinstatement in view of catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court.

(2.) Referring to the evidence before the Labour Court and working on muster-roll for few days as is coming out from Annexure-5, it is submitted that workman was engaged on daily wage basis. In the affidavit of Suresh Chand Mishra, para 7 indicates that permanent work does not exist. When the nature of the appointment of the workman and all the relevant facts regarding his status exist, the labour Court should have awarded compensation to the respondent workman instead of reinstatement with back wages. The prayer is accordingly made to interfere in the impugned award and thereby order of reinstatement with 60% back wages may be substituted by the award of compensation. This is more so when workman was earning during the intervening period.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent workman on the other hand submits that impugned award is perfectly legal and justified. Once the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there is a violation of the provisions of section 25F, G & H of the Act of 1947, an employee cannot be denied benefit of reinstatement with 60% back wages as a consequence thereof, more so when work undertaken by the petitioner is of continuous nature.