STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SURENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner State of Rajasthan in this writ petition has challenged the award dated 23. 3. 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner. A reference was made to learned Labour Court by appropriate government on the question whether raising of dispute by the respondent workman Shri Surendra Singh after ten years was justified and further whether termination of his service by the management by order dated 16. 1. 1984 was legal and justified and if not what relief workman was entitled to.

(2.) THE case set up by the respondent workman before the Labour Couurt was that he was appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis against a clear cut vacant and permanent post on 1st December, 1981. He served under Junior Engineer Shri Harjeet Singh upto 30th June, 1983 and thereafter under Junior Engineer Shri L. P. Garg from 1. 7. 1983 to 31. 10. 1983 and thereafter under yet another Junior Engineer Shri Tilakraj Ahuja from 1. 11. 1983 to 31. 12. 1983 and then again under said Shri Harjeet Singh from 1. 1. 1984 to 16. 1. 1984. Without assigning any reasons, the Executive Engineer by verbal order on 16. 1. 1984 removed him from service. His case was that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his removal and that the management did not assign any reason nor did it serve any notice prior to his removal. Many of his juniors were retained in service when he was removed and the management did not publish any seniority list at the time of his removal. He submitted various representations to the management to press his demand for re-instatement in service. In the meantime, his mother fell sick. THE workman being youngest son was engaged in looking after his ailing mother and arrangement for her treatment. In this process period of five years passed and finally his mother expired which disturbed his mental state and therefore he had to remain under treatment for sometime. He thereafter got married and finally, after he settled in his life, he applied to the Conciliation Officer for his re- instatement and hence the reference was made.

(3.) IN Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas, reported in (2004) 8 SCC P. 195 it was held that burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding date prior to his alleged retrenchment and that adverse inference could not be drawn against the management for non producing muster rolls. It was held in that case that High Court erred in drawing such inference against the management. IN the present case, according to learned Deputy Government Advocate most of the records were not traceable and it was difficult to trace them because of the delay. Burden of proof squarely fell on the respondent workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days. The reference ought to have been answered in negative. Alternatively Mr. Rameshwar Dave also argued that the learned Labour Court ought not to have directed re-instatement of the workman because the dispute was raised by him in regard to the alleged retrenchment made on 16. 1. 1984 very much delayed in 1995 and the reference was enormously delayed by more than 14 years which was ultimately referred by the appropriate government on 21. 1. 1998 and the award was passed still delayed on 23rd March, 2001. If at all the action of the management is held to be violative of Section 25-F of the Act, the lump sum amount which has already awarded to the tune of Rs. 2500/- was the only appropriate relief in the circumstances of the case. He has therefore prayed that the award passed by the Labour Court may be dismissed.