ASSISTANT ENGINEER Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner Assistant Engineer, Left Main Canal, Sub Division, CAD, Bundi has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 4. 12. 2002 in LCR No. 133/97 whereby the workmen have been reinstated with continuity in service with 25% back wages w. e. f. 12. 11. 1990 i. e. the date of raising dispute before conciliation officer except two workmen Hazara S/o Sawla at S. No. 3 and Nanda S/o Chittar at S. No. 10, who died during the pendency of the proceedings and their legal representative have not been brought on record, therefore, proceedings were dropped against them.

(3.) THE Labour Court after considering pleadings of the parties and evidence on record came to the conclusion that in the retrenchment order (Ex. 5) there is a mention that services of the workman have been terminated under Rule 26 of the Work- charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (in short ``the Rules of 1964'') and the notice pay was sent through cheque, further the compensation and remaining salary was to be collected from the concerned Sub-division. THE Labour Court has held that there is no evidence on record that number of workmen were more than 100, therefore, section 25-N of the ID Act is not applicable. However, the Labour Court has further considered the fact of compliance of Section 25-F of the ID Act, which is applicable in case of less than 100 workmen. After considering the pleading of the parties, evidence on record and judgment of Supreme Court and this Court, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that simple mention of compensation and other salary to be collected from the sub- division will not amount to either simultaneous offer or tender or payment of compensation as required under Section 25-F (b) of the ID Act. THE Labour Court has further held that simply asking the respondents to collect whatsoever is due is not sufficient compliance of Section 25-F of the ID Act. THE Court has also came to the conclusion that there is no mention of the fact that pay of one month's notice and compensation are the payment under Section 25-F (a) & (b) of the ID Act. Placing reliance on Sain Steel Products vs. Naipal Singh & Ors.-AIR 2001 SC 2401, the Labour Court has given the finding that even mention of the fact to collect the compensation and remaining salary will not amount to offer in terms of Section 25-F of the ID Act.