GOPI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-workman against the order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 787/2004 by which the learned Single Judge has modified the award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in favour of the Appellant-workman by granting him compensation of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and 30% back wages which had been awarded to him by the Labour Court.

(2.) The circumstance under which the dispute arose indicates that the Petitioner had been discharging duties on daily wages in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, "RSEB") but as per the Respondent's version he was not on muster-roll but was a casual employee to discharge duties at the residence of the Officers of the RSEB. After the reconstitution of the RSEB, which is now known as Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (for short, "Vidyut Nigam"), the services of the Appellant-workman were terminated. The Appellant-workman did not raise any dispute for more than 13 years in regard to his termination, but after 13 years he raised a dispute that his termination was contrary to the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Jaipur and the Labour Court, Jaipur, after adjudication, was pleased to direct reinstatement of the Appellant-workman with 30% back wages. The Respondent-Vidyut Nigam challenged the award passed by the Labour Court before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the entire case history and back ground, was pleased to modify the award and directed that the post of orderly, on which the Appellant-workman was working, having been abolished even as per the finding recorded by the Labour Court, he could be granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The Appellant-workman, feeling aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge, has preferred this appeal.

(3.) It was submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant-workman that the order modifying the award of reinstatement into one of grant of compensation is not justified for even if the post was abolished, the Vidyut Nigam is still absorbing the workman in various guest-houses of the Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and, therefore, the award of reinstatement is fit to be upheld and the order of compensation should be set aside.