STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHOKHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed for quashing and setting-aside the Award dated 19-7-91 (Annexure.3) passed by the judge, Labour Court, Bikaner, in Labour Case No. 141 of 1990, and the order dated 17.6.92 (Annexure.6), passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sri Ganganagar, in Case No. 8 of 1993.

(2.) Respondent Chokha Ram was appointed as Chowkidar on 1.2.87, in the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Hanumangarh Junction, on daily wages basis. He continued on this post till 31.3.88, when his services were terminated. He made an application, through the Secretary, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Sri Ganganagar, before the Reconciliation Officer. The Reconciliation Officer submitted his 'Failure Report' to the State Government, and the State Government vide its order dated 31.3.90, referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the applicant-workman, viz., Chokha Ram, never worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in a calendar year, as is clear from the Chart produced alongwith the writ petition and, therefore, the learned Judge of the Labour Court was not justified in passing the Award in favour of the applicant. His further contention is that applicant Chokha Ram himself left the work on 1.4.88, and never appeared thereafter and as the absence of the applicant-workman has voluntary and without any justified reasons and as he was appointed on daily wages basis on musteralrool, therefore, his services automatically came to an end and he is not entitled for the aforesaid benefits. His further contention is that in the case before the Labour Court, the representative of the petitioner viz., Mr. Suresh Garg, Ranger, appeared at the Suratgarh Camp of the Court on 8.4.91 and the copy of the claim was supplied to him and the next date was fixed on 20.5.91, but on 20.5.91 the Labour Court did not hold its camp at Suratgarh and no date was fixed thereafter in the presence of the aforesaid representative of the petitioner nor was the petitioner informed thereof and, therefore, the Award Annexure 3 deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Regarding the order Annexure.6, passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sri Ganganagar the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice of the application was not properly served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings deserves to be quashed and set-aside. It is, also, contended that the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded the amount which was not legally due in the petitioner as per the correct calculation.