CHAIL SINGH Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the award dt. 04.03.2003 passed by the learned Labour Court thereby answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government in the terms that the petitioner workman failed to prove that he was removed from service of the respondent management on 01.12.1990 or that he worked with them upto 30.11.1991. The learned Labour Court in the circumstances therefore declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner before the learned Labour Court was that the appropriate government while making reference to the Labour Court required it to determine and answer as to whether removal of the petitioner from the service of the respondents on 01.12.90 was legal and valid and if not what relief was he entitled to. However the petitioner submitted his statement of claim wherein he asserted that he was appointed by the respondent No. 2 on 16.07.84 and was working continuously for six years. He worked in Bhinmal range up to 30.11.1991 under respondent No. 3 and was being paid salary on muster rolls basis. In the terms of the reference made by the appropriate government, the date of termination of the petitioner from service was indicated as 01.12.90 but due to typographical error in the statement of claim the date upto which the petitioner worked under respondent No. 3 came to be typed as 30.11.91 instead of 30.11.90. Since the statement of claim was the basis for the preparation of affidavit of the petitioner and his cross examination and all further proceedings, in very proceeding of the record, the date of last working day of the petitioner has been referred to as 30.11.91 instead of 30.11.90. According to the petitioner, he continuously worked with the respondents for six years on muster rolls basis and there is evidence to the effect that he worked upto 30.11.90 after which he was transferred to Sanchore where he reported for duty on 03.12.90 but the Ranger, Sanchore asked him to come on duty after ten days. When the petitioner went after ten days, he was asked to come on duty after one month and thereafter when he again went there, he was asked to come on duty after 3 -4 months. Subsequently he was informed that he has been again transferred back to Bhinmal but when he reported back at Bhinmal, he was informed that no post was available there and was asked to go back to Sanchore.

(3.) LEARNED Labour Court upon examination of the evidence and consideration of the arguments of the parties held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief because if according to him he worked upto 30.11.91, there was no question of his being removed from service from 01.12.90 and there was a variation in the date of termination as given in the terms of reference and the statement of the claim and the affidavit of the workman.