NAVRATAN SON OF SHRI LOHADYA MAHAVAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST PIPALDA TEHSIL BOULI DISTRICT SAWAI MADHOPUR (RAJASTHAN) Vs. THE JUDGE LABOUT COURT NO.2, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the award dated 27- 11-2013 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur whereby the claim of the petitioner workman alleging illegal termination was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Mistri on 1-6-1979 in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Lalsot District Dausa and worked in that capacity upto 29- 6-1983, but was then removed from service by a verbal order on 30-6-1983 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'). An industrial dispute was thereupon raised before the Conciliation Officer but no settlement could be arrived at. On failure report being submitted, the State Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, where the workman filed a statement claiming that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days during the period of twelve months immediately preceding his termination on 30-6-1983, without compliance with Section 25F of the Act of 1947 as neither was he served with notice of one month nor pay in lieu thereof, nor he was paid retrenchment compensation. It was stated that no seniority list was prepared prior to removing the petitioner from service but persons junior to him were retained in service in breach of Section 25G of the Act of 1947.

(3.) The department opposed the claim of the workman and submitted that according to muster roll of the department or otherwise the petitioner workman had never been employed with the department continuously for any length of time to warrant compliance with Section 25F of the Act of 1947. And in the nature of work and intermittent employment a seniority list being drawn was not necessary. It was also stated that the dispute was raised by the workman after a period of sixteen years from the date of his alleged termination without any reason for such delay even being proferred. The Labour Court on the evidence laid before it by the contesting parties, dismissed the claim of the petitioner workman. Hence this petition.