STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHANDRA KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) learned Labour Court, Kota whereby the reference made to it under Section 10(l)(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 1947 Act) was answered in favour of respondent workman and it was held that retrenchment of the workman w. e.f. 30/05/1983 was illegal and the workman was entitled to be reinstated in the service with continuity of service and 40% of the back wages. Respondent workman submitted statement of claim before the Labour Court, with the averments that she came to be appointed as 'Kuli' on January 1, 1977 and after two years was declared semi permanent. The employer vide order dated 30/05/1983 retrenched her services without following the mandates of Sections 25-F and 25-G and 9-A of the 1947 Act. The employer filed reply to the statement of claim justifying the retrenchment. The employer pleaded that the services of the workman were retrenched in view of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short 1964 Rules). Both the parties thereafter submitted affidavits and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties learned Labour Court rendered the award as indicated above.

(2.) I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the employer vehemently canvassed that there was inordinate delay of eleven years in raising the dispute therefore the dispute could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of 1947 Act. Reliance is placed on Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhavankutty AIR 2000 SC 839 : 2000 (2) SCC 455 : 2000-I-LLJ- 561.