ASSISTANT ENGINEER (TLCD) SD Vs. SHRI PRAKASH SINGH S/O SHRI MUSADI SINGH, VILLAGE & POST DADA FATEHPUR, VIA KHETRI, DISTRICT, JHUNJHUNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Under challenge is the impugned award dated 23-1-2012 passed by the Labour Clourt No. 2 Jaipur in LCR No.1553/1998 holding that the respondent workman (hereinafter 'the workman') retrenched on 23-9-1989 by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter 'the Nigam') was entitled to succeed in his claim petition and to a direction for reinstatement as a casual worker on muster rolls albeit without back wages.

(2.) Mr. Virendra Lodha appearing with Mr. Tarpit Patni on behalf of the petitioner Nigam submitted that in a similar matter Assistant Engineer (TLCD) Vs. Leela Ram, SBCWP No.11720/2012 decided on 14-9-2012 , this court relying on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty [(2010)9 SCC 126] and Sain Steel Product Vs. Naipal Singh [(2003)4 SCC 628] directed that instead of reinstatement of the workmen on the post of casual workers after a period of over 23 years-which had elapsed between their retrenchment and the passing of the award the workman be instead paid in lieu compensation of Rs. 85,000.00.

(3.) Mr. Lodha submitted that in the instant case the workman had worked all of 51 days in Nov., 1986, Aug., 1989 and Sept., 1989, yet the Labour court perfunctorily drawing adverse inference against the petitioner Nigam on its failure to produce muster rolls generally directed to be produced without any specificity held that the workman must have worked for over 240 days in the 12 months immediately preceding his retrenchment. On that basis the Labour court concluded that the retrenchment of the respondent workman was in contravention of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'). It has been submitted that this was so done even despite no averment in the claim petition with regard to specific department in the Nigam whereby the workman claimed to have worked 240 days in 12 months immediately prior to his retrenchment on 23-3-1989. Mr. Lodha however submitted that on parity with the judgment in the case of Assistant Engineer Vs. Leela Ram (supra) the impugned award 23-1-2012 with regard to relief of reinstatement be altered to that of monetary compensation to the respondent workman.