ASHOK KUMAR VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN appointment was accorded to the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk on daily rate basis on 3.8.1985 and he was retrenched from service on 6.10.1986. Being aggrieved by the same he raised an industrial dispute that was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. The Labour Court vide its award dated 28.2.2001 declared retrenchment of the petitioner from service illegal, and directed the employer to reinstate him in service with 25% of back wages. The employer by way of filing a petition for writ (SBCivil Writ Petition No.246/2002) before this Court challenged the award dated 28.2.2001. The writ petition aforesaid came to be accepted in part on 15.12.2006 with a modification in the relief granted and in lieu of reinstatement, a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded. However, prior to the judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2006, the employer reinstated the petitioner workman in service on 6.10.2005. A special appeal preferred by the petitioner workman giving challenge to the judgment dated 15.12.2006 also came to be rejected on 16.4.2007. Despite the modification made by this Court with the relief granted by the Labour Court, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service by the employer. The employer neither discontinued the petitioner from service nor paid the compensation in a tune of Rs.50,000/-, as awarded by this Court. By a notice dated 9.6.2009, the respondent No.2 asked the petitioner as to why he be not terminated from service in compliance of the judgment dated 15.12.2006. AN opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 29.6.2009 the petitioner was terminated from service with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) IT is submitted that in pursuant to the award dated 28.2.2001, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 6.10.2005 and despite the judgment dated 15.12.2006 he was not discontinued from service for good 2? years. IT is contended that continuation of the petitioner in service upto 29.6.2009, even after modification of the relief granted by the Labour Court vide the judgment dated 15.12.2006, clearly indicates that the employer was intending to continue the petitioner in service and was not desiring to pay the compensation. IT is asserted that though the petitioner was discontinued from service in the name of compliance of the directions given by this Court, but as a matter of fact, no such instruction was ever given. As per counsel for the petitioner the modification made in the relief, in no manner restricts the employer to continue the petitioner in service, if so chosen.

(3.) AN another important fact of the case is that in SBCivil Writ Petition No.246/2002 a statement was made by counsel for the employer on 10.3.2006 about reinstatement of the workman in service in compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court, without pointing out that the reinstatement was made in pursuant to an interim order passed in the writ petition aforesaid on 23.1.2002. In view of the statement so given, the writ petition was disposed of as becoming infructuous. AN application then was submitted by the employer to recall the order disposing of the petition in view of the fact that the appointment was given to the workman subject to final decision of the writ petition. The employer was quite vigilant in moving that application, but it is strange that no expeditious action was taken by the vigilant employer on disposal of the writ petition that modified the relief granted by the Labour Court. As a matter of fact, this conduct of the employer strengthens the petitioner's stand about employer's intention for not terminating him from service. Suffice it to mention that in SB Civil Writ Petition No.246/2002 this Court was examining validity of the award passed by the Labour Court and while doing so modified the relief granted to the petitioner. In industrial jurisprudence the prime consideration is industrial peace, thus, even after getting a verdict from judicial fora the parties in dispute remains at liberty to arrive at a different settlement. As such, it was open for the employer to continue the petitioner in service and that was done by continuing the petitioner in service upto 29.6.2009. The termination of the petitioner on 29.6.2009 appears to have been made for some other reason and a false shelter of the directions given by this Court appears to have been taken.