RESIDENT ENGINEER Vs. LAKHPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE respondent-workman was appointed as `bhishti', on 1. 12. 79, in the appellant-department. On 1. 9. 83, his services came to an end inasmuch as he was not allowed to work on the post of `bhishti'. THE respondent-workman, being aggrieved by the action of the appellant, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. THE Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the services of the workman were ruminated in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Accordingly, the Labour Court by its order dated 03. 01. 95, set aside the order of termination of the respondent and directed his reinstatement. THEreupon the appellant filed a writ petition but the learned Single Judge of this Court, refused to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court.

(3.) AGAIN, in Ram Niwas vs. The Mining Engineer & Others (DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 270/203, decided on 24. 4. 2003), the following view was taken by us:- " It is not disputed that the appellant worked only for a short period of one year and that too on daily wages. He was not regularly selected for the job. The gap from 20. 06. 1992 to the date of passing of the award was a substantial one. AGAIN between the date of the termination of the appellant and of now, eleven years have gone by. The appellant has not been in touch with the job for over a decade. It will not be appropriate to thrust the appellant on the respondent employer after such a long time. In case, the appellant is directed to be reinstated, question of seniority, emoluments and promotion would arise. It may affect the seniority and chances of promotions of employees, who have been working in absence of the appellant. Though, the normal rule is to direct reinstatement of a workman, whose services have been terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement is not a must in every case. In a fit case, it may not be expedient to order reinstatement on setting also of the order of termination. In such a case, compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be more desirable. "