STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant intra Court appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 06.04.1993 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1402/1983 whereby the learned Single Judge observed that the order of termination of the respondent -workman with effect from 30.5.1983 was in violation of Sec. 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The aforesaid termination order dt. 29.5.1983 was quashed and set aside and the respondent -workman was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits except the actual wages between the date of termination of his service and the date of the order impugned. However, for the back wages, liberty was grant to avail remedy under Sec. 33C(2) of the Act. After the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 06.04.1993, the respondent -workman was reinstated on 02.11.1993 and he is presently working in the Board of Revenue since 02.03.2002 holding the post in the substantive capacity.

(2.) AS the facts culled out, the respondent -workman was appointed as Survey Amin on daily wages basis on 30.12.1977 and declared semi -permanent with effect from 29.12.1979 vide order dt. 19.02.1980. After declaring the writ -petitioner as semi -permanent , by order dt. 29.05.1983, his services were terminated in exercise of power under Sec. 26 of the Work - charge Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'), the writ petition came to be filed. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the materials which came on record, recorded finding that the employee being a workman who had worked for 240 days in the last preceding 12 months from the date of termination, it was incumbent upon the employer to comply with the mandate of Secs. 25 -F(a) & (b) of the Act, which clearly stipulates that the one month notice or salary in lieu thereof and 15 days' compensation of each completion of year of service has to be tendered or paid to the workman before the order of termination is given effect too, however, the employer has given its justification and tried to convince that the compliance of the Sec. 25 -F of the Act was made, but the learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the pleadings on record, arrived at the conclusion that the mandate of law was not complied with and failed to comply with the mandate of Sec. 25 -F of the Act. Its consequence is that the order of termination become void ab initio, bad in law and the respondent -workman becomes entitled for reinstatement and that is what the learned Single Judge observed in the order impugned dt. 06.04.1993, it has also been noticed by us that after the respondent - workman was reinstated on 02.11.1993.