LORRIK YADAV Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the part of the award dated 3/07/2001 by which the learned Labour Court though found the violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 in case of the petitioner's retrenchment, but refused to give the relief of reinstatement and other consequential benefits and awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of the order of reinstatement and other benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court was under wrong impression that the petitioner's services were retrenched from 1/07/1983 and petitioner raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer in the year 1995 or under wrong impression that dispute was raised after four years of the retrenchment refused the relief to the petitioner of reinstatement in service.

(3.) It is true that it is mentioned in the impugned award dated 3/07/2001 that petitioner's services were terminated from 1/07/1983 and he raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer in the year 1995. It is also true that at page 10 of the award, it is mentioned that the petitioner failed to agitate his claim for four years and he did not disclose any sufficient reason for the delay and, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded. But a bare perusal of the claim petition filed by the petitioner, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure, P/l clearly shows that the petitioner was retrenched from 30/06/1987 and according to averment in para No. 7 of the claim petition, the petitioner raised the dispute on or about 27/09/1987 itself. The petitioner further stated that since no action was taken by the appropriate Government, therefore, he raised dispute again on 6/03/1995 and, thereafter, he sent representations in the year 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. When the appropriate Government refused to refer the matter to the appropriate authority, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1273/1999, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 27/07/2000 directing the respondent to refer the dispute to the learned Labour Court, upon which the dispute was referred. The facts mentioned in the para No. 7 clearly reveals that the petitioner, who was retrenched from 30/06/1983 raised the dispute on 25/09/1987 and, thereafter, remained silent for long period of 8 years. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner became stale at that time, still he raised another dispute in the year 1995. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted representations and in the year 1999 after getting rejection from the appropriate Government, preferred the writ petition. Though, this Court directed the appropriate Government to send the reference to the learned Labour Court by which the Labour Court required to decide the dispute. So far as making a reference is concerned, this is not under challenge and what relief could have: been granted to the petitioner comes only after when he established his right to relief by showing that there is a violation of any provision of Law entitling him to the relief. After recording this finding of violation of any statutory provision of law entitling the petitioner to the relief, the Labour Court is required to grant the relief, but at that time, can look into the facts of the case and can grant the relief or mould the relief looking to the facts of the case. Here, in this case, even if, the Labour Court under wrong impression that the dispute was raised against the retrenchment of the year 1983 in the year 1995 or it was raised after four years may be wrong, but in view of the admitted facts of the petitioner's remaining silent from 1987 to 1995 itself was sufficient to deny the relief of reinstatement and back wages. Therefore, the writ petition has no force and even there is a factual error in the award with respect to the period after which the dispute was raised, but I found that the petitioner is not entitled for relief more than what has been granted by the Labour Court.