BHIMSEN Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his retrenchment without following the provisions of the Industrials Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I. D. Act' ). The petitioner was initially appointed as a Beldar on daily wages in the month of August, 1984. According to him, his services were orally terminated by the Secretary of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'ida') in August, 1985. No termination order was issued to him and at the same time he was not given the retrenchment compensation before his services were terminated. The matter was taken up before the Conciliation Officer but no progress could be made as the respondent did not appear and the conciliation proceedings resulted in a failure report given on 17th April, 1989. After serving a notice for demand of justice the petitioner filed this writ petition on 11th July, 1989. It may be mentioned here that the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 8th March, 1990 but none of the parties appeared before the Labour Court and ultimately in absence of any claim, the Labour Court gave a no-dispute award on 13th, July, 1991.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he had completed more than 240 days of service and the termination of his service without following the statutory provisions is bad in law. Besides this, the petitioner has prayed that he should be fixed in regular pay scale and should be paid other allowances as are admissible to the Class-IV employee. By virtue of an additional affidavit filed'on 3rd December, 1990, the details of the places where he worked from August, 1984 to : August, 1985 have been given. He worked at the Malviya Nagar Gardens from August, 1984 to April, 1985 then again in June, 1985 and in May, 1985 he worked at 22 - Godown Circle and in July and August 1985 he worked at Malviya I Nagar site. The total working days were more than 240 days.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent stating that after failing of the conciliation proceedings the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court and after making a reference the petitioner cannot seek the remedy simultaneously before the two forums. Subsequent answer to the reference as no dispute pending between the parties is also said to be a bar to the maintainability of this writ petition.