STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HARISH CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN writ petition No. 4298/1993, the award of INdustrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 3/12/1992 (Ann. 6) is under challenge whereas in another writ petition i. e. 2396/1996, the workman raised the grievance of non-compliance of the award, more particularly, proceeding under Section 33 (C) (2) of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') before Labour Court, Jaipur for computation of back-wages and other benefits as awarded by INdustrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The subsequent writ petition is arising out of execution proceeding of award which is under challenge in earlier writ filed by State, therefore, both the writ petitions are connected and being decided by this common order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the workman was appointed as patwari in the regular pay-scale vide order dated 2/3/1973 against the leave reserve vacancy. The workman submitted the joining report on 5/3/1973 and he continuously worked from 5. 3. 1973 to May, 1974, but when the wages of the said period were not paid, the workman approached the payment of Wages Authority (for short 'the Authority') for getting wages from June, 1973 to May, 1974 by filing an application before the Authority and the Authority awarded the wages claimed by the workman. In the month of June, 1974, his services were terminated by an oral order. On 4. 5. 1982, the workman was taken back in service. He kept writing to the department to regularize the period of his service from May 1974 to 30/5/1982. The workman raised the industrial dispute regarding regularization of his service before the conciliation officer, but no settlement was arrived at and the failure report was submitted. On 27/8/1987 (Ann. 3), the State refused to make reference. Against the said order, the workman filed the writ petition which was registered as DBCWP No. 3213/1987 Harish Chandra Sharma vs. State wherein on 13/3/1989, the State was directed to make reference. The State Government, in compliance of the said order, made reference on 10/4/1989 to Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as under : ...[Vernacular Text Ommited]...

(3.) IN Para 7 to 11, the evidence has been discussed by the INdustrial Tribunal and the objection of the petitioner-State that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute, has been rejected by the INdustrial Tribunal on the ground that the matter is of termination, therefore, covered by the definition given in the Act as envisaged under Section 2-K. As regards jurisdiction and reference, the INdustrial Tribunal has held that in case any reference is sent to the INdustrial Tribunal, then it becomes necessary for the INdustrial Tribunal to adjudicate the same. IN Para 15, the finding with regard to non-compliance of Section 25- F has been given and ultimately, it was held by the INdustrial Tribunal that the termination of the services of workman is not proper and legal. He was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and payment of all arrears of back-wages and in case the same is not paid within a period of three months, then 12% interest is to be paid and cost of Rs. 100/- was also imposed. The relevant portion of the award dated 3. 12. 1992 is reproduced hereunder: ...[Vernacular Text Ommited]...