STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. UCHCHAV LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by employer -petitioner assailing order of Labour Court dated 21st March, 2002 whereby while holding termination of respondent -workman dated 1st October, 2002 to be violative of Article 25 -F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, workman has been directed to be reinstated in service with 25% of back wages.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent -workman was engaged on daily wages basis in the year 1988 as Cattle Guard and his services were terminated w.e.f. 1st October, 1992 which was initially challenged by him by filing C.W. No. 2259/93 which was dismissed on 15th September, 1995 holding that such disputes can be raised before the appropriate forum provided under the Act, 1947. Thereafter, respondent -workman filed application before the conciliation officer and after failure report was submitted, the appropriate government made a reference to the Labour Court. After due adjudication, learned Labour Court recorded a finding, which has been considered in detail and it was observed that respondent -workman was working at the relevant time @ Rs. 22/ - per day and one month's wages was paid @ Rs. 572/ - and Rs. 858/ - towards compensation. Looking to his wages, respondent -workman was entitled for one month's wages which should have been Rs. 660/ - computed @ Rs. 22/ - per day and compensation in terms of Section 25F(b) to be considered 15 days wages of each completed year of service which comes to Rs. 990/ - against which a sum of Rs. 858/ - was paid to respondent -workman and accordingly, observed that a short payment was tendered and paid to respondent -workman and thus, action of the employer -petitioner was in violation of Section 25F of the Act, 1947.

(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner while assailing the order on merits, particularly, with respect to compliance made Under Section 25F of the Act is concerned, submits that total one month's wages and compensation has been computed taking note of total period of actual working of respondent -workman and accordingly, paid, as such learned Labour Court has committed a manifest error in holding the action of the petitioner to be violative of Section 25F of the Act. Counsel further submits that there was no material on record so far as awarding 25% back wages to respondent -workman is concerned. Counsel further submits that since respondent -workman is not in employment for sufficient long time and the award was stayed by this Court, he may be adequately compensated in lieu of reinstatement.