STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHRI BABULAL SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1, employee preferred the claim petition before the learned Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term of the reference was with regard to the legality of termination of the respondent No. 1 with effect from March, 1984. The respondent No. 1 stated in his claim petition that he was appointed with the petitioner from June, 1982 and he continued to serve as MR Beldar till February, 1984. On 2nd February, 1984 Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Unit Incharge was given a charge list, in which 31 articles have been given to him for protection/watch while working as a watchman. During the course of the charge, certain items were stolen and an FIR was lodged upon which the respondent No. 1 remained in jail for 5 days. The services of respondent No. 1 was terminated without any enquiry even when he had worked as a workman for more than 240 days in the calendar year. The respondent No. 1 was acquitted from the charges so levelled against him under criminal law by the competent court vide order dated 21st August, 1989.

(2.) The petitioner submitted reply to the claim petition stating therein that the respondent No. 1 voluntarily stopped coming from the job as he did not report on the duty after 15.01984. It has been submitted that his case was covered 2 (oo) and (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus therefore there was no question of giving any notice of retrenchment, compensation pay to the respondent. The petitioner justified that since there was no termination, therefore there was no question of any notice, enquiry or any kind of order being passed for the same. The learned Labour Court passed an award vide order dated 24.04.1999 holding that since it was proved that the respondent No. 1 had completed 240 days in twelve preceeding calendar months and was not served any show cause notice or charge sheet so as to clarify the position while terminating his services was bad in the eye of law. It was also observed by the learned labour court that the FIR was lodged with regard to the alleged theft which resulted into acquittal of the respondent No. 1. The learned Labour Court has observed that since there is absolute violation of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947, therefore, the termination of service, of respondent No. 1 was illegal and unjustified. The respondent No. 1 was granted the status of continuity in service. Therefore, he was entitled to back-wages from 13.08.1990 to 29.04.1999. The petitioner thus challenged the award and the respondent gave a reply in which he stated that the respondent has continues service of 240 days in last 12 calendar months which was proved and therefore a clear violation of section 25F of the Act, 1947 and Sections 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (for short hereinafter) were violated.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 has also averred in the reply that the FIR which was resulted into termination of his service, has resulted into his acquittal and therefore there is no reason why the benefits of his employment should not be received by him.