CHILD DEVLOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER Vs. LACHCHO RAM MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as "Department") challenging the award dtd. 19/6/2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1- Workman raised an industrial dispute and after failure of the conciliation proceedings, the State Government made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur for adjudication of the dispute. Thereafter, the Workman submitted a claim stating therein that he was appointed by the Department in the year 1989 and he has worked therein till 1992. Thereafter, the Department terminated his services without assigning any reason. The Department filed a reply to the claim petition and submitted therein that the Workman has never completed 240 days in one calendar year and he had left the job as per wish without informing the Department. Thereafter, the Workman as well as the Department submitted the oral and documentary evidence. The learned Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties comes to a finding that there is no violation of under Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "ID Act"). However, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that there is a violation of 25 H of the ID Act, as while giving appointment to the new persons, the Workman was not given an opportunity for re-employment. The learned Labour Court vide its award dtd. 19/6/2000 ordered for reinstatement of the Workman with continuity of service and also awarded 25% of the back-wages. Being aggrieved by the award dtd. 19/6/2000 the Department has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that there is no violation of 25 F of the ID Act, therefore, the learned Labour Court has committed a serious illegality in directing for reinstatement of the Workman. Counsel further submits that the reinstatement in such cases is not automatic and some reasonable compensation can be given to the Workman.