STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the State under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby the Judge, Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent's services is illegal because it is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Judge, Labour Court, while passing an order for reinstatement, awarded 50% back wages to the respondent workman and also gave direction to grant semi permanent status on completion of two years' service in accordance with the Workcharged Rules, 1964 on the post of 'Beldar'. Learned counsel for the petitioner department has vehemently argued that the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, is totally erroneous because there was no master and servant relationship between the petitioner department and the respondent workman. Infact, the respondent workman was engaged through Reliance Security Services Ltd. or Bhilwara District Ex Servicemen Welfare Society, therefore, the award impugned is based upon illegal and perverse finding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Judge, Labour Court has failed to consider the material evidence on record, although a specific plea was taken by the petitioner department that the respondent workman was appointed through Reliance Security Services Ltd. and in view of that fact, there is no relationship of master and servant in between the petitoner department and the respondent workman.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, is perfectly in consonance with the law because to prove a particular fact with regard to appointment of workman, it was necessary for the petitioner department to produce documentary evidence in support of their contention that the respondent workman was engaged through Reliance Security Services Ltd. It is further argued that in absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Judge, Labour Court has rightly arrived at the finding that only on the basis of assertions made in the reply without any documentary evidence, it cannot be presumed that the respondent workman was provided appointment through Reliance Security Services Ltd. Learned counsel for the respondent workman further argued that in identical matter in case of Chhagan Lal Joshi, the learned Judge, Labour Court, adjudicated the industrial dispute in which it is held that without any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the workman was engaged through Reliance Security Agency or other agency, it cannot be held that there was no master and servant relationship in between the petitioner department and the respondent workman. In the case of Chhagan Lal Joshi, identical issue was in question but the Labour Court, learned Single Judge, and the Division Bench of this court finally adjudicated the issue and it was held that in absence of any documentary evidence that the workman was engaged through Reliance Security Services Ltd., it cannot be presumed that there was no master and servant relationship in between the petitioner department and the respondent workman, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) In (1) S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.10883/2013 "State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Prasad" and (2) S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.13469/2013 "State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Prasad", decided today i.e. 23rd May, 2014, following adjudication has been made: