STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GEETA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the State Government against different awards passed by the learned labour court, but the issues raised therein are substantially same not only on law but on facts as well therefore they were taken up for hearing together and are now being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) IN S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 616/2002, a reference was made to the labour court by the appropriate Government on 3. 6. 1997 for adjudication on the question whether the removal of the respondent workman by the management Principal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Pratapgarh was legal and justified and if not, what relief and amount the workman is entitled to. The case of the workman before the learned labour court was that she was appointed on the post of ward boy on 28. 5. 1992 and worked with the management upto 31. 12. 1995 on which date she was removed by verbal order. Even though she has completed more than 240 days in their service, the management did not make compliance of the provisions of Section 25f of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947) prior to removal of the workman. The management contested the claim of the workman and contended that she was working only on part time basis for two to three hours in a day and a part time employee did not fall within the ambit of workman in the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947. The learned labour court on the basis of evidence in the case concluded that the respondent had completed more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date of her removal and in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Yaswant Singh Vs. State of Rajastha (1989 (1) RLR 156) even a part time employee would be a workman for the purpose of INdustrial Disputes Act. The learned labour court therefore directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service and 70% back wages.

(3.) SHRI Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that the appointment of the respondent-workman was made only for the purpose of cleaning of the office on part time basis and they did not work on regular basis nor was their appointment was made on regular basis and therefore they could not be treated as working in the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947 and on that basis he further argued that there was no question of any violation of Section 25f of the Act of 1947 and further more the learned labour court could not direct their reinstatement in service because they were not appointed against any regular post, but were engaged only on part time basis for the work of cleaning of office. SHRI Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon VS. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1764 and Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat vs. The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd & Anr. Reported in AIR 1979 SC 1356 and on the strength of these judgments argued that the learned labour court had no power to travel beyond the terms of reference. SHRI Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that the learned labour court has committed serious error of law amounting to an error on the face of record by altering the date of removal from 31. 1. 1996 as mentioned in the terms of reference to 31. 12. 1995 by describing this as typing error. Even if it is considered to be an error of this nature, learned labour court on its own could not correct it. The appropriate course for the learned labour court was to request the appropriate Government for desired correction in the terms of reference, if at all the same was considered necessary.