MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. HAUSLA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against award dated 22.9.01 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, whereby while declaring the termination of services of the respondent-workman illegal, he is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 30% back wages. It is further ordered that the arrear of wages shall be paid within a period of three months failing which the workman shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workman claimed to be in continuous service from 10.3.96 to 12.12.96 whereas, a categorical stand of the petitioner-employer was that the workman was engaged only for a period of two months from 1.4.96 to 31.5.96 on daily wages basis to discharge the duties of Gardner and therefore, the burden to prove the continuous employment as claimed was on the workman. It is submitted that there was no evidence led to prove the factum of the workman being in employment for a period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment and thus, the Labour Court has seriously erred in holding that the retrenchment of services of the workman is violative of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). Learned counsel submitted that the documents produced by the workman placed on record were not authentic and thus, the Labour Court has seriously erred in relying upon the same. Learned counsel urged that the dispute regarding the termination of services was raised by the workman after a delay of three years and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has seriously erred in directing his reinstatement in service. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, during the pendency of the present petition, the workman while accepting the wages for the period of 1.9.99 to 12.7.10 quantified at Rs. 26,380/- had given in writing that he does not intend to continue with the present writ petition preferred. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the documents annexed with the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the employer on 27.10.15. Accordingly, it is submitted that the workman having waived his any further claim as aforesaid, the award stands satisfied and therefore, the workman is not entitled for any further relief. Learned counsel further submitted that if this court comes to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court regarding the termination of services of the workman being illegal, cannot be interfered with, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, keeping in view the short term of employment, the delay in raising the dispute and the conduct of the workman in settling the dispute by accepting the back wages, it would be appropriate that in lieu of reinstatement, the workman is awarded lump sum compensation. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. v. Gitam Singh", (2013) 5 SCC 136.

(3.) On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any fundamental flaws or jurisdictional error and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of "Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur", (2011) 6 SCC 584, "K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation", 2015 (1) WLN 23 (SC) and "Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan", (Civil Appeal No.3701 of 2015, decided on 16.4.15). Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court regarding the workman being in continuous service for more than 240 days and non compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, after due examination of the evidence on record, does not warrant any interference by this court. Learned counsel submitted that the retrenchment of the workman being found illegal and void, the relief of reinstatement in service with back wages must be the rule and thus, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the workman made the efforts to join the duties after passing of the award but the employer did not allow him to join the duties. It is submitted that there is absolutely no delay in raising the dispute therefore, the relief of reinstatement in service and back wages, cannot be denied to the workman. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that if the court comes to the conclusion that the workman is entitled only for lump sum compensation then, he deserves to be awarded reasonable amount of compensation. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of "Correspondent, Anaikar Oriental (Arabic) Higher Secondary School and Anr. v. A. Haroon and Anr.", (2017) 2 SCC 510 and "Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad v. Employers in relation to Management of Kenduadih Colliery of Bihar at Coking Coal Limited and Ors.", (2017) 1 SCC 264.