STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LASSI K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the award dated 23.7.1994, passed by Judge, Labour Court, Kota, by which termination of services of respondent No. 1 was declared to be illegal and unjustified and the respondent -workman was held entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) THE facts, as come on record, are that respondent No. 1 was engaged as typist on daily wages basis on 28.9.1984 in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Division -I, Kota. The contention of the respondent No. l was that she was removed from service w.e.f. 16.10.1985 without notice and without complying with provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, .whereas she has completed more than 240 days of service in the employment of the department as referred to above. After making representations to the Authorities concerned the respondent No. l filed an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 1.11.1985 itself. Before Conciliation Officer, Kota, the plea of the department was that the services of the respondent -workman were only terminated because of availability of a regularly selected typist in the office. Non - compliance of Section 25F was admitted by the department before the Conciliation Officer. Thereafter, the dispute was referred by State Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. In reply to the statement, filed by respondent -workman, the department took a new plea that the respondent -workman stopped coming on duty on her own. However, it was admitted that respondent -workman had worked for 306 days for the period from 28.9.1984 to 15.10.1985. The respondent -workman submitted her affidavit and was cross -examined by representative of the petitioner. No evidence was led by the department to controvert the evidence led by the concerned workman. Only an affidavit of one Mr. V.K. Virmani, Assistant Engineer, PHED, Division -I, Kota, was submitted, however, that is of no consequence because the witness was not produced for cross examination. Moreover, even otherwise, in affidavit also Mr. Virmani has only stated that the services of the respondent workman were not terminated and she herself has stopped to come on work. No other record was produced by the Department.

(3.) MR . Manish Bhandari, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the appointment of the respondent -workman itself was irregular and, as such she was not entitled for any relief. However, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage because no such plea was* taken either before the Conciliation Officer or before the Labour Court. No reason whatsoever has been submitted by the petitioner as to why the evidence could not be produced before the Labour Court. Even no attempt was made by the department before the Labour Court to produce any evidence, even after the same was closed by the Labour Court way back on 13.4.1993.