STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHIV KUMAR ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the impugned award dated 3rd May, 2006 (Annex. 5), passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner. The Labour Court by the award under challenge has adjudicated the reference in favour of the respondent -workman and against the petitioners by concluding that the termination of the respondent -workman w.e.f. 22nd November, 1989 is illegal and bad in law and as such the respondent -workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of services without back wages. The learned Labour Court also awarded him cost of Rs. 2,500/ - only. For assailing the impugned award, the petitioners have, inter alia, alleged in the petition that the respondent -workman was engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 14th August, 1988 and served the petitioners upto July, 1989. As per the version of the petitioners, the respondent -workman was a casual labour, who was employed for undertaking certain contingent works, and after July 1989, he has voluntarily stopped coming to office and as such he has abandoned his services. With these positive assertions, the petitioners have pleaded that the respondent -workman was not entitled for protection of the provisions of Chapter (V -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). By citing clause 12(3) of the standing orders governing the service conditions of respondent -workman, the petitioners have also alleged in the writ petition that by remaining absent for eight consecutive days, he is automatically ceased to be in employment. Challenging the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, the petitioners have also averred in the writ petition that the learned Labour Court has not examined the matter in its entirety and further more the delay and laches on the part of respondent -workman of more than ten years in raising the industrial dispute has also been over -looked by the learned court below. The factum of employment of the petitioners for 240 days in a calender year was also seriously disputed by the petitioners.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondent -workman, reply to the writ petition was submitted and the averments contained in the writ petition were refuted. In the return, the respondent -workman has averred with full emphasis that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and he has rendered the services without any interruption from 14.08.1988 to 21.11.1989. Thus, with these pleadings, the respondent -workman has defended the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court and submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below regarding violation of Sections 25 -F and 25 -G of the Act of 1947 is just and proper and calls for no interference.

(3.) THE learned Deputy Government Counsel, Mr. K.R. Saharan, has vehemently argued that the findings of the learned Labour Court regarding illegal termination of the respondent -workman are contrary to materials on record and are therefore perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that the learned Labour Court has not properly appreciated the issue regarding abandonment of job by the respondent -workman inasmuch as while rejecting the said contention of the petitioners, the learned court below has simply relied upon the affidavit of the respondent -workman. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also strenuously contended that the burden of proving the duration of the employment was on the respondent -workman, which was not discharged by him and as such the impugned award is not at all sustainable.