HAKIM SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner -workman against award dated 17.10.2012, whereby an industrial dispute referred to Labour Court, Bharatpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court'), by appropriate government on 12.04.2007, was answered against the workman -petitioner. The terms of reference included the questions whether raising an industrial dispute after 18 years of removal from service by the workman is legal and valid and whether the workman worked under the employer in a calendar year for minimum 240 days for the period from year 1986 to 31.08.1988 and whether removal of petitioner -workman from service by respondents on 31.08.1988 was legal and valid and if not what relief was workman entitled to.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that he worked for continuous two years with the respondents and the Labour Court has declined to grant relief on the ground of delay of 18 years, but the petitioner has explained the delay satisfactorily which has not been considered by the Labour Court properly. It is contended that the respondent is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India and they are duty bound to follow the constitutional mandate. The petitioner is entitled for giving the status of semi permanent but instead of giving the benefit, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated by the respondents. The Labour Court has not considered the statement and affidavit filed by the petitioner and totally ignored the same. The nature of work was permanent and in respondent department other similarly situated persons were reinstated in the service and still working after the order passed by the court but the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the Labour Court. The petitioner discharged his duties daily and worked 8 hours in a day. The petitioner has completed 240 days in a calendar year but this fact is totally ignored by the Labour Court. The petitioner is unemployed till date and is not having any other source of income to maintain his family. The respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the impugned award is liable to quashed and set aside.

(3.) THE Labour Court in support of its award has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in C.E. Ranjeet Singh Dham v. Shyam Lal,, 2006(4) RLW Page 3171; Assistant Engineer CSD Kota v. Dhankar, : AIR 2006(SC) 2670; U.P. State Road Transport v. Babulram,, 2000 SCC(L&S) Page 1113 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopilal v. State of Rajasthan, : 2008(118) FLR Page 744. In all the aforesaid judgments it was held by the Supreme Court as well Division Bench of this Court that if reference is made with enormous delay, the Labour Court can decline to grant any relief to the workman on that count alone.