RAM GOPAL GUPTA Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitoner Dr. Ram Gopal Gupta against the award dated 21/4/1995 by which Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short the Tribunal) while answering reference on the question of removal of respondent-workman Ramlal vide order dated 12/3/1976 held that his removal by petitioner was illegal and that he would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity and full back wages.

(2.) SHRI Vinendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was individually running Gupta Clinic where the respondent-workman was engaged as Compounder and that an individual doctor running a clinic cannot be said to be fall within the purview of industry as defined in Section 2 (J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel argued that despite specific objection was raised in reply to statement of claim that respondent was not a workman. The Tribunal erred in law in holding that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Learned counsel has submitted that Tribunal has failed to correctly appreciated the evidence adduced before it inasmuch as it was clearly pleaded that said clinic was being run as partner-ship firm of Dr. Ram Gopal i.e. petitioner herein and Dr. Mohan Lal and that partner-ship firm was no more in existence after December, 1974. If respondent-workman as per his assertion was removed from service on 12.3.1976 on that date, obviously petitioner was running the clinic as an individual doctor. Learned counsel however submitted that evidence by way of Ex.M/1 and M/2 photographs of the clinic, where the respondent-workman after his removal was working, was wrongly disbelieved by Industrial Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that those photographs were proved by petitioner and that in the face of it the Tribunal ought not to have directed payment of full back wages. Besides that learned counsel submitted that statement attributed to workman that he in his affidavit has stated that he has continuously been unemployed after his removal is not factually correct. Learned counsel sought to substantiate this argument by producing certified copy of statement of respondent-workman. Learned counsel submitted that in fact when the petitioner was away from the Clinic due to certain marriage in his relation, the respondent had on his own injected a medicine to one Munni Bai, who died for that reason. Respondent-workman was prosecuted for offence under Section 304-A IPC and after his acquittal he raised the industrial dispute. The dispute was belatedly raised, therefore, it was referred to Industrial Tribunal by notification dated 9.12.1982. Delay occasioned was made because initially the Government declined to make reference and thereafter respondent-workman approached this Court in a writ petition for making reference. Subsequently, the award was passed by Tribunal on 11.1.1984 rejecting the claim of petitioner. He then filed a writ petition before this Court (SBCWP No.1558/1987) challenging award, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.7.1993 and the matter was remanded to Industrial Tribunal again for fresh adjudication. The impugned award was passed by Tribunal belatedly on 21.4.1995. Removal of respondent was made as far as back on 12.3.1976 and counting from that date, already 19 years have gone by when the impugned award was passed and now when this matter is being decided by this Court, more than 33 years have gone by. In those facts, there was no justification for the Tribunal to either direct for payment of full back wages or reinstatement of respondent-workman. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgments in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa : 1978 (2) SCC, 213 Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U. P. : 1955 (2) LLJ 1 Allahabad, Dr. Devendra M. Surti Vs. State of Gujarat : 1969 Lab. IC 245 (Bombay), Dr. Nirupama Rath Vs. State of Orissa : 1996 Lab. IC 1585 (Orissa).

(3.) THIS writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. Copy of this judgment be endorsed to respondent-workman for information.