TEJA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition for writ, validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur is questioned.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner- workman entered in the services of the respondent-employer on 05.10.1971 being appointed as Laboratory Technician. On 05.01.1995, he submitted an application to the competent authority to avail voluntary retirement from service with effect from 25.01.1995 as he was desiring to contest Panchayat elections. The employer acting upon the application dated 05.01.1995, retired the petitioner voluntarily with effect from 25.01.1995 under an order dated 30.01.1995. The petitioner-workman contested the election and lost the same. Subsequent thereto, on 16.02.1995, he submitted an application to the employer to reinstate him in service by withdrawing the voluntary retirement granted with effect from 25.01.1995. No response was given to the application dated 16.02.1995, thus, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 01.04.2004 before the competent conciliation officer. A failure report was submitted by the conciliation officer to the appropriate government and the appropriate government under a notification dated 31.12.2004 referred the industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the following terms :- ......[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]......

(3.) A preliminary objection was also raised by the employer in the terms that the dispute referred is neither an industrial dispute defined under Section 2(k) nor an individual dispute as defined under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). The petitioner in support of the claim made his own statement on oath and he also produced certain documents before the Labour court. Learned Labour Court after considering the entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner after availing voluntary retirement also accepted all pensionary and post retiral benefits much back in the year 1995- 1996, therefore, it was not open for him to raise an industrial dispute at a belated stage in the year 2004. Learned Labour Court also observed that after 25.01.1995, the petitioner was not a workman with the employer, therefore, no relationship of master and servant was existing and as such the dispute raised by him cannot be termed as an industrial dispute. While challenging the award, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on the count that on the day the dispute was raised the petitioner was not in employment of the employer, it cannot be said that no industrial dispute was existing. It is asserted that as a matter of fact, learned Labour Court was required to examine the nature of the dispute on the day that arose. It is also submitted that under the Act of 1947, no limitation is prescribed for raising an industrial dispute, therefore, the Labour Court erred while denying adjudication of the dispute on merits on the count of delay.