EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAD KOTA Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal preferred by the Executive Engineer CAD Kota (appellant) arises out of judgment/order dated 18. 8. 98 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge while upholding the order dated 24. 2. 1997 of the Labour Court Kota directed reinstatement of the respondent workman with a direction that he shall be entitled to claim 40% of the back wages and the impugned order of the appellant by which services of the workman were terminated by virtue of having been declared surplus, was quashed and set aside.

(2.) BEFORE we deal with the rival contentions and legal proposition, we deem it appropriate to refer to the term of Reference made to the learned Labour Court by the State Government on the representation of the workman as per provisions contained in Section 10 (1) (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "act") - " Whether the employer Executive Engineer `bain Nahar' CAD Kota was justified in terminating services of his employee Satya Narain s/o Onkarlal who was working as Mate w. e. f. 31. 10. 1983 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

(3.) THE workman had challenged the impugned order of his termination from service before the Labour Court on the grounds inter alia that as per provisions of Section 25-N of the Act he was entitled to three months prior notice indicating therein reasons for his retrenchment and it was only after expiry of the period of notice or the workman had been paid compensation in lieu of such notice i. e. wages due and admissible to him for the period of notice that his services could be terminated. It was further contended by him that since neither notice of three months was served on him indicating therein reasons for his retrenchment nor he had been paid wages for the period in lieu of notice and also prior permission of the Government or appropriate authority specified by the Government by a notification in official gazette had not been obtained as per Section 25-N (1) (a) & (b) of the Act, the employer was not justified in terminating his services and the respon-dent was entitled to reinstatement. THE aforesaid contentions were controverted by the appellant that the notice period as per Rule 26 (1) of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (Buildings and Road including Gardens, Irrigation, Water-Works and Ayurvedic Department) Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short "work Charged Rules") is only one month in case of monthly rated em-ployee and two weeks in case of other semi permanent employees and therefore, in view of the fact that the respondent workman was work charged employee and two weeks in case of other semi permanent employees and therefore, in view of the fact that the respondent workman was work charged employee and his services were rightly terminated in accordance with Rule 26, of the aforesaid Work Charged Rules and as per requirement of Rule 26, referred to above, a notice was given to the respondent workman of one month's salary in lieu of notice period which he did not accept. THEreafter the retrenchment notice was pasted outside office of the appellant in which it was clearly mentioned that the persons who wanted cash payment could take the same from the office but the respondent wilfully avoided to accept the same. It was further contended by the department appellant that no notice is required to be served on the workman as per Rule 24 of the Work Charged Rules.