LAWS(RAJ)-2017-2-56

BANWARI LAL S/O SHRI SEDU RAM, BY CASTE SAINI, RESIDENT OF KARNIMATA KA MANDIR, KHATIPURA ROAD, JAIPUR Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, JAIPUR

Decided On February 10, 2017
Banwari Lal S/O Shri Sedu Ram, By Caste Saini, Resident Of Karnimata Ka Mandir, Khatipura Road, Jaipur Appellant
V/S
Chief Engineer Irrigation Department, Jaipur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 13.07.2016 allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4042/2013. The learned Single Judge set aside the award dated 10.09.2012 of the Labour Court, Ist Jaipur directing reinstatement of the Appellant for retrenchment contrary to the procedure prescribed under Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that retrenchment compensation was never paid to the Appellant. The award of the Labour Court therefore calls for no interference. If there is no infirmity in the decision making process by the Labour Court, the High Court essentially exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution ought not to have set aside the award. It is denied that compensation was ever paid to the Appellant through his father Sedu Ram much less that it was paid to Sedu Ram at any point of time. The Respondents for the first time in their reply to the writ petition by Annexure-R/1 sought to suggest that the retrenchment compensation payable to the Appellant had allegedly been paid and collected by his father Sedu Ram which is factually incorrect.

(3.) Counsel for the Respondents submitted that no rejoinder to the counter affidavit was filed denying or disputing the stand of the Respondents that the compensation money was paid to Sedu Ram with regard to four retrenched employees one of whom was the Appellant. The other three employees had not denied receiving of retrenchment compensation through Sedu Ram. Therefore by implication, the retrenchment compensation also stands paid to the Appellant. In absence of any reply filed by the Appellant traversing and denying these facts mentioned in the counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge committed no error in arriving at a finding of a fraud played by the duo of father and son to get the benefit of retrenchment compensation and simultaneously reinstatement also.