KAYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 24.4.1999.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent -Department on 14.11.1989. After having worked in the said Department, his services were terminated by oral order dated 11.3.1991. Since the services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by approaching the Conciliation Officer. The matter could not be resolved and, thereafter, the Appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court at Jodhpur. Before the Labour Court, Jodhpur, the petitioner submitted his statement of claim stating therein that he had completed more than 240 days of service in a calender year and his services were terminated without following the requirements of Chapter 5 of the Act of 1947. The respondent -Department filed its reply and thereafter, evidence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court gave its award dated 24.4.1999 holding that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days of service in an year and also came to the conclusion that there was non -compliance of Section 25 of the Act of 1947 while terminating the service of the petitioner, while negating the plea of the petitioner -workman that persons junior to him had been retained in service. Though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been illegally retrenched, it directed that a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - be paid as compensation to the petitioner -workman instead of ordering reinstatement. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported as Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr., : 2015 AIR SCW 869 to contend that in case the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, any termination order passed will be void ab initio for non -compliance of Section 25 of the Act of 1947. Resultantly, the workman would be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that after finding and recording that the workman had completed 240 days in a calender year and also there was non -compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, he should be reinstated with full back wages instead of giving compensation in lieu thereof.