SHEEP HUSBANDRY OFFICER Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD, GADARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioners, namely, Sheep Husbandry Officer, Large Scale, Sheep Breeding Farm, Fatehpur, District Sikar and another, challenging the award of the Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 18.02.1998, whereby it held the proceedings under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 against the respondent No. 1 -workman to be just and valid. So far the termination of the respondent No. 1 -workman thereunder is concerned, the Labour Court ordered to forfeit the period from 1982 till his reinstatement withholding his all consequential benefits of that period, directed his reinstatement from the date of his rejoining in service. The Labour Court held the subsistence allowance for that period to be sufficient towards his salary. It further directed to pay him the regular pay from the date of the award. The Labour Court also ordered to forfeit his salary from the date of joining till the date of award. The workman was also held to be not entitled for any wage or leave encashment and other benefits before the date of award, however, the workman shall be entitled to be paid the salary from the date of the award in the pay scale mentioned in order (Exhibit M -1) that has been revised from time to time and shall be fixed in the pay scale on 18.02.1998 and thereafter shall be paid the regular pay scale. So far as the continuity of the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the period from 02.03.1982 till the he rejoins the service shall not be counted towards his service. Keeping in view the date of superannuation, the respondent No. 1 -workman would not be entitled to get proportionate pension.

(2.) AN industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court as to whether removal of the respondent No. 1 -workman Jagdish Prasad Gadaria by the petitioner management in disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules') was legal, valid, and if not what relief what he entitled to get. The Labour Court while answering the reference, held the removal to be illegal and further held him entitled to reinstatement. By substituting the penalty of removal and order of substitution of penalty of removal by that of forfeiture of his back wages from the date of removal till reinstatement. Back wages, leave/earned -leave but granted him benefit of regular pay scale from the date of award by notionally arriving at such pay scale from 01.03.1982 and 18.02.1988 but the aforesaid period shall not be counted towards his past service.

(3.) SHRI Arpit Srivastava, learned Deputy Government Counsel for petitioners, has argued that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that regular disciplinary proceedings were not conducted against the respondent for charge of his willful absence from duties. The respondents not only remained absent from duties but did not submit application for grant of leaves. His services were terminated on 06.11.1982 on the valid charge which was lawfully proved. The impugned award is therefore liable to be set aside.