STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ISHATAQ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 1. 10. 2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment and award dated 13. 3. 2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner (respondent No. 2) by which the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 Ishataq Ahmed by the petitioners with effect from 1. 8. 1980 was not found proper and valid and thus, the respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated back in service, but without back wages, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: Vide Notification dated 8th Sept. 1999, the Government made a reference to the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner to the effect whether the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 Ishataq Ahmed by the petitioners with effect from 1. 8. 1980 was proper and valid or not. On that reference, the respondent No. 2 Labour Court registered the case being Labour Dispute Case No. 33/2000 and issued notices to both the parties. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 Ishataq Ahmed filed his claim before the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner through Annex. 1 stating inter-alia that he was appointed in the petitioners' Department with effect from 31. 1. 1977 as Helper-II and thereafter, he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and further, he proceeded on sanctioned leave on 1. 8. 1980 and during the period of leave since he fell ill, therefore, he prayed for extension of time, but vide order dated 5. 8. 1981, his services were terminated by the petitioners with effect from 1. 8. 1980 and that too by not following the procedure prescribed under the law. A reply to the claim (Annex. 1) submitted by the respondent No. 1 was filed by the petitioners through Annex. 2 before the respondent No. 2 Labour Court and the case of the petitioners was that the respondent No. 1 had raised the industrial dispute after a period of 19 years i. e. at a belated stage and therefore, the reference was bad in law and not only this, before termination of services of the respondent No. 1, notices were given to him, but he did not appear and therefore, it was a case of abandonment and not retrenchment. Hence, it was prayed that the claim of the respondent No. 1 be dismissed. After considering the entire evidence and material available on record and hearing both the parties, the respondent No. 2, learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner through impugned judgment and award dated 13. 3. 2001 came to the conclusion that the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 Ishataq Ahmed by the petitioners with effect from 1. 8. 1980 was not proper and valid and thus, ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1, but without back wages holding inter-alia:- (i) That the order terminating the services of the respondent No. 1 with effect from 1. 8. 1980 was passed by the petitioners on 5. 8. 1981 and the respondent No. 1 raised the dispute for the first time on 21. 6. 1997 before the Government and Government made the reference to the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner through Notification dated 8th Sept. 1999. (ii) That the respondent No. 1 had not submitted satisfactory explanation for remaining absent for about 13 months. (iii) That the petitioners have failed to prove the fact that they issued notice to the respondent No. 1 before terminating his services with effect from 1. 8. 1980 and therefore, the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 with effect from 1. 8. 1980 was bad in law and thus, the respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated back in service, but since the respondent No. 1 was not in the employment of the petitioners since 1. 8. 1980, therefore, back wages were not granted to him. Aggrieved from the said judgment and award dated 13. 3. 2001 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) THE salient features of the above authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be summarised in the following manner:- (1) That ordinarily relief of reinstatement should be granted consequent upon the finding that the termination of service of the employee was bad and illegal. However, in exceptional circumstances, compensation can be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. (2) That where the discharge or dismissal of a workman was not legal or justified, the relief which would ordinarily follows would be reinstatement. However, the Labour Court/tribunal has the discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement if the circumstances of a particular case are unusual or exceptional so as to make the reinstatement inexpedient or improper. (3) That instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, compensation can be granted. (4) That though it was obligatory on the part of the Court to direct reinstatement when the termination was found to be void and illegal, but where long period has elapsed since termination, compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages would be justified. However, reinstatement would be the rule and compensation in lieu thereof is exception. (5) That in a case where there is long lapse of time between the termination and the Labour Court award, grant of lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, is proper. (6) That though the termination of the services of the workman was in flagrant violation of the Statutory provisions, but for granting the relief, the Court may, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, devise a new formula and grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.