VIKASH ADHIKARI Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner have prayed for setting aside the award dated 13th October, 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner and its consequential notification dated 18th August, 1999. The case set up by the petitioners in the memo of writ petition is that the respondent -workman was engaged as a part time worker during Famine Relief Works on fixed monthly payment of Rs. 75. A copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat has been placed on record to substantiate this. Apart from working with the petitioner, the respondent -workman was also running a Grocery Shop in his village and, therefore, ho on his own accord, stopped working in Famine Relief Works from the year 1987. The petitioners have placed on record resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Gulpura passed on 7th December, 1997 to show that the respondent was running a Kirana Shop for the last 15 years. This according to the petitioners was the reason for his absence from duty. The respondent submitted an application before the Labour Commissioner Churu some time in the year 1990 alleging therein that he worked with the petitioner -management from 13th February, 1980 to 30th October, 1987. His services however were terminated with effect from 1st November, 1987 in violation of Sections 25 -F and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Art of 1947'). It was clarified by the management that the respondent -workman was engaged only as a part time worker on monthly payment of Rs. 75 and he used to work only for few hours for 1 or 2 days in a week as and when meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened. Neither was there any post of Assistant Secretary nor the respondent was engaged/appointed on any such post of Assistant Secreyary. In fact, the respondent -workman left the aforesaid part time job on his own will with effect from 1st March, 1985 because he was already pre -occupied in connection with his domestic works and Grocery Shop. Hence, this writ petition. On receipt of the failure report, the State Government vide notification dated 16th November, 1993 made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Bikaner on the question whether action of the petitioner -management in removing the respondent -workman from their service with effect from 1st March, 1985 is legal and valid and if not, then what relief the respondent -workman was entitled to.

(2.) THE learned Labour Court, Bikaner vide its award dated 13th October, 1988 decided the matter against the petitioner -management and answered the reference in negative holding that removal of the workman by the management from the service with effect from 1st March, 1985 was not legal and justified and further that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service from 1st March, 1985. It however did not award back wages to the workman from the date of removal till passing of the award, although he was held entitled for continuity in service and the salary from the date of passing of the award.

(3.) I have heard Shri Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Saluja, learned Counsel for the respondent -workman.