RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rajasthan Financial Corporation has come up in appeals against the decision of the learned Single Judge reinstating the employees who were engaged on daily wages, back in service with back wages.

(2.) RESPONDENTS in both these cases were employees on daily wages. Respondent Vinod Kumar in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 539/95 was employed with effect from January 1, 1982 on daily wages for typing work. His services were discontinued from February 2, 1994. Respondent Naveen Kumar in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 540/ 95 was employed on daily wages for typing work on April 20, 1980. His services were also terminated from February 2, 1994 Both these respondents had filed civil suits challenging the termination of their services as illegal retrenchment. The trial Court dismissed the suits for declaration and injunction. On an appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction in view of the special remedy provided by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners filed these petitions in the year 1988 taking a stand that they had a good case in the Civil Courts also but filing a second appeal under Section 100 or the Code of Civil Procedure would be a cumbersome remedy and therefore, they would not opt for that. It was also contended that the District Court while dismissing their appeal had held that the termination of the services was illegal retrenchment for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and. therefore, respondents contended that they had a good case before the Labour Court also but since 4 years have elapsed, it would not be proper for this Court to ask them to go to the Labour Court. The petitions of the respondents were entertained by this Court and were admitted. Both the petitions were decided by the learned Single Judge by holding that the petitioners before him had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the termination of the services and, therefore, they could not have been retrenched without notice or without payment of compensation. The learned Judge, therefore, reinstated the respondents with back wages. However, he did not allow back wages till the filing of the petitions on the ground that for the time lost in the Civil Courts, the appellant Corporation was not responsible. The appellant Corporation has challenged these orders In these appeals.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants before us submitted that the case should not have been entertained by this Court because the respondents had come to the Court four years after the discontinuation of their services and after having availed of an alternative remedy. We feel that the learned Single Judge had no option but to decide the cases on merits because the petitions were already admitted for hearing and the petitions contained clear averments as to why alternative remedy was not being pursued further. We do not agree that the learned Single Judge was wrong in deciding the cases on merits. It appears that this objection was not raised before the learned Single Judge at the time or arguments because the impugned order in the cases do not take note of any such averment.