RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LABOUR COURT RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, hereinafter to be referred as the "board", and is directed against two orders of the Labour Court the first one dated 9-7-62 (Ex. O), and the second one dated 1-8-62 (Ex. Q), by which, on applications made by respondents Narsanghlal and Dwarka Prasad workmen in an undertaking of the Board, under section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred as the "act", the Labour Court ordered the Board to pay retrenchment compensation to these respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner Board is a public undertaking for the purpose of generation and supply of electricity in the State of Rajasthan and has its power houses at various places. It maintains a power house at Bikaner also. Prior to the formation of Rajasthan the power house at Bikaner was run by the ex-Bikaner State as a State department and on formation of Rajasthan the State of Rajasthan continued to maintain the power house as a departmental undertaking. Sometime in 1957 the Board was constituted as a body corporate and the power houses were taken over by the Board. The employees of the State in these departmental undertakings became the employees of the Board consequent to the transfer of the undertakings to the Board. According to the writ petition, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who were employed at the power house when the former Bikaner State was in existence, came to be retired from 8-10-1948. After the retirement they were again re-employed by the State on work-charge basis: The Board did not like to continue old persons in employment as that would adversely affect the efficiency of the undertaking. The Chief Engineer of the Board, therefore, directed, as a matter of policy, that the services of all employees above the age of 60 years should be dispensed with. The case of the Board is that, on 10-6-60 the Chief Engineer directed the Executive Engineers to dispense with the services of all such employees forthwith and consequently by orders Ex. C and Ex. D, the Executive Engineer of the Board at Bikaner terminated the services of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, with effect from the afternoon of 8-7-1960 in the case of Dwarka Prasad, and from the afternoon of 15-7-1960 in the case of Narasangh Lai. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 then filed separate applications before the Labour Court under Section 33-C of the Act. They asserted by these applications that in retrenching them the Board had not followed the provisions of law and in particular retrenchment compensation had not been paid to them as required by Section 25f of the Act. They, therefore, claimed retrenchment compensation and one month's notice pay. The applications were opposed before the Labour Court by the Board on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the services of the respondents were terminated as a matter of general policy for the reason that they were old and infirm employees and had been re-employed on work-charge basis after their due retirement and consequently it could not be postulated that they were retrenched employees within the meaning of the Act. It was further contended before the Labour Court on behalf of the Board that Section 33-C of the Act did not empower that Court to entertain a claim of the nature put forth by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Under that section the Labour Court could not adjudicate or determine whether the respondents had any right to receive retrenchment compensation, as, according to the Board, the Labour Court could only deal with the question of computation of the retrenchment benefits if the right to receive such benefits is established elsewhere before a competent forum. The orders of the Labour Court are thus assailed on the

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It is denied by them that they had been retired earlier on account of their attaining the age of superannuation. They maintain that they were below 50 years in age at that time and have reached the age of 58 years only of late. They assert that no standing orders had been framed by the Board, nor was superannuation age fixed for them and further they were only compulsorily retired and thereafter reemployed. They claimed that they were still quite fit to carry on the jobs hitherto done by them and the Board itself was still having in its service several employees who were past 60 years in age. Further, traversing the grounds taken by the Board in the writ petition, the respondents submit that theirs was a clear case of retrenchment. According to the respondents, the Board had itself admitted in two of its communications that their services were retrenched. They further adverted to the affidavit of one Shri Mathur, an employee of the Board, Ex. M 1, filed before the Labour Court for an admission made therein that there was some reduction in the strength of work-charge employees and, therefore, the Labour Court was, according to them, justified in holding that theirs was a case of retrenchment. It is stressed by them that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court about they being retrenched employees is one of fact and since the Labour Court has come to that finding on the basis of the evidence before it that finding is not open to challenge or further investigation in exercise of the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As regards the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33c of the Act, it is submitted that it was open to the Labour Court not only to go into the quantum of retrenchment compensation, but also to determine the question whether the respondents were entitled to receive any such retrenchment compensation.