BHANWAR SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the relief, which was granted to him in part only by award dated 7/06/1999. It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed on 1/06/1990 and continued to work till 5/04/1991. By oral order, the petitioner's services were terminated, which according to the petitioner amounts to retrenchment as it was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). The Labour Court found that the petitioner worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year and there is a violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, but after considering the various judgments on the point that what relief can be granted to the petitioner, awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- instead of order of reinstatement. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled for the order of reinstatement and the Labour Court committed grave illegality in awarding compensation in lieu of order of reinstatement. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the various judgments, it is clear that if initial order of retrenchment is found illegal and unjust, then the employee gets right of reinstatement. It is also submitted that reasons given in the award for not giving relief of reinstatement cannot be treated as sufficient reason for denying the reinstatement. It is also submitted that in the matter of labour cases, it is difficult to get the matter referred to the Labour Court within a short period and it may take years to reach before the Labour Court and, therefore, virtually no case of relief of reinstatement will be available to the poor employee- workman.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the various aspects of the law, held that it is not mandatory to order reinstatement in each and every case, it depends upon the facts of each case. It is also submitted that if the Labour Court after application of the mind and after considering the facts of the case exercised the discretion in one way or the other unless it is shown absolutely perverse this Court may not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Ganshyam v. State of Rajasthan and others, DBCSA. No. 930/2001 November 14, 2002.

(3.) After hearing the arguments of both the sides and after careful consideration of the judgment of this Court, which was relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner delivered in the case of Bhanwar Singh v. Labour Court, Jodhpur and others, SBCWP No. 3206/1998 dated 15/03/2000 and upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in DBCSA No. 476/2000 dated 2/08/2000 wherein award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was found permissible by the learned single Judge of this Court in above referred judgment by following two earlier judgments of this Court and the same view was upheld by the Division Bench in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner himself, therefore, in view of the Division Bench's judgment delivered in the case of Ganshyam v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra), it is clear that the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, can award compensation in place of giving relief of reinstatement to the workman when the Labour Court found that the order of retrenchment is illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947.