STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are challenging the award dated April 23, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Kota, on a reference made to it by the State Government under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that termination/retrenchment of the respondent-workman was illegal being in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court therefore, directed for reinstatement of the workman with back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) IT cannot be disputed that the retrenchment/ termination of a workman for non-compliance of Section 25-F is rendered invalid and inoperative. The effect of the same is that a retrenchment brought about without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F is no retrenchment/termination in the eye of law and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. This proposition of law is no more in dispute after a catena of judgments of the Apex Court of the country as well as of this Court.

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, that the workman was on daily rate basis and he had abandoned the work, as such, it was not a case of retrenchment to attract the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act. In my view this argument has no substance. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the workman during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his retrenchment, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days, as such, he can be said to be in continuous service for not less than one year required under Section 25-F. This is primarily a finding of fact and the learned counsel is unable to point out any mistake apparent on the face of the record, to vitiate the said finding. Admittedly, the service of the workman has not been terminated by the employer by way of disciplinary action. The trial Court has also recorded a finding that the workman did not voluntarily cease to come on duty, but, in fact, he was removed by the Assistant Engineer. Hence, the argument raised by Mr. Sharma has no leg to stand.