RAM JANAM SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court is perverse since the Petitioner, who was appointed in the Upper Bazar Shop as Salesman-cum-Bill Clerk on 8.12.1977 in the shop of the Respondent-Company and he worked there on 4.4.1994, he was transferred to Main Road Shop of the Company where he worked till 8.4.1998. It is further submitted that on 8.4.1998 the Petitioner illegally terminated without any notice and compensation and he is entitled to his terminal benefits. Accordingly, he filed an application on 22.3.1999 under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court, Ranchi, demanding retrenchment compensation for 20 years, gratuity, leave wages and for interest. It is further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, gave a finding that the claim is not based on any existing right nor it has been held that his termination was due to closure of shop. The Labour Court also wrongly found that the claim application was bad for non-joinder of necessary party since the Management of Main Road Shop of M/s. Ashok Enterprises was not made a party and as such the impugned award is bad and only fit to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that since the management-Respondent had taken no approval of the order of discharge or dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and as such he will be deemed to be continuing in service and hence he was entitled to all benefits. He has relied upon the judgment of Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors., 2002 92 FLR 667