STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GANPAT SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dated 15.4.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara answering a reference made to it by the appropriate government under notification dated 29.9.1995 in the terms that, "Whether termination of workman Ganpat Singh S/o Shri Sampat Singh by the employer Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Gulabpura, Bhilwara w.e.f. 26.6.1993 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled -

(2.) The workman in his statement of claim filed before the labour court stated that he remained in employment of the Assistant Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Gulabpura as Beldar w.e.f. 16.8.1992 to 26.6.1993. The employer terminated him from service subsequent thereto without adhering mandatory conditions precedent for effecting valid retrenchment. In support of the statement the workman placed on record muster-rolls relating to the months of August2 1992, September-1992, October-1992, November-1992, December-1992, January-1993, February-1993 and also the hand receipts those were marked as Exhibit 8 and 9. Learned labour court after considering all the relevant muster-rolls and other evidence available on record reached at the conclusion that the workman was in continuous service of the employer as defined under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as such, his termination from service without assigning any reason is nothing but retrenchment as interpreted under Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. The retrenchment of the petitioner was declared illegal being in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Learned labour court granted relief of reinstatement in service with all back-wages and other consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. The argument advanced on behalf of the employer is that the workman willfully absented from duties after 29.8.1993, and as such, he abandoned service and was not retrenched as held by the labour court. It is also urged that the labour court erred while making calculation of 240 days to satisfy continuous service as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947.

(3.) So far as the first contention is concerned it is suffice to mention that no evidence was adduced by the employer before the labour court that the workman himself absented from duties after 29.6.1993. It is pertinent to note that the reference of the dispute itself was made in the month of September 1995 meaning thereby the industrial dispute must have been raised by the workman immediately after discontinuation from service. If he would have absented from duties there was no occasion for raising a dispute immediately after discontinuation from service. It is also relevant to note that the employer in para 3 of its written stated that due to less work load the workman was discontinued from service. In view of the statement aforesaid it is not open for the employer now to say that the workman absented from duties at his own.