SB CWP NO.4826/07 – Tej Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:05.01.2009 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT J O D H P U R ::: O R D E R Tej Singh V. State of Raj. & others S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4826 OF 2007 Date of Order: 05th January, 2009 ::: P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr S.P. Sharma, for the petitioner Mr N.K. Mehta, for respondents ::: BY THE COURT Under a notification dated 10th August, 1999, the appropriate Government referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to Labour Court, Udaipur in terms that - “Whether termination of the workman Tej Singh s/o Sajan Singh, resident of Dagwada, Tehsil- Nathdwara, District Rajsamand by the employer Executive Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Rajsamand Division, with effect from month of August, 1994 is proper and valid? If not then to what relief the workman is entitled?” The petitioner-workman, in pursuance to reference made by the appropriate Government, submitted a statement of claim before the Labour Court, stating therein that the employer terminated him from service on 01st August, 1994. In return, the employer stated SB CWP NO.4826/07 – Tej Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:05.01.2009 2 of 3 that the workman at his own discontinued to join duty after 31st May, 1994. The Labour Court by the award dated 04th May, 2006, rejected claim of the workman by holding that the reference made by the appropriate Government under the notification dated 10th August, 1999 is vague as no date of termination from service is given therein. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred, with the contention that the Labour Court should have got the reference of industrial dispute corrected by remitting the matter to the appropriate Government. It is also stated that the date of termination was given by the workman in the statement of claim itself, therefore, Labour Court on basis of the available facts, should have decided the matter on merits. It is also asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason available with the Labour Court to hold that the workman is not entitled for any relief, as prayed. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents, stating therein that petitioner Tej Singh worked with the Department from the month of October, 1993 to February, 1994 and thereafter, he remained willfully absent from duty and as such, the statement that he was terminated from service with effect from 01st August, 1994 is not correct. Be that as it may, the appropriate Government under the notification dated 10th August, 1999 referred SB CWP NO.4826/07 – Tej Singh v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:05.01.2009 3 of 3 an industrial dispute with specific mention regarding month of termination of petitioner. The proper course before the appropriate Government was to constitute an industrial dispute in specific terms by giving a specific date of termination. It should have been done by the appropriate Government on the basis of industrial dispute raised by the workman and on basis of the facts available in the failure report. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing the respondent No.1 to reconstitute and refer the industrial dispute in question by referring the date of termination of the workman for its adjudication, on the basis of available record including the failure report submitted by the competent authority. Such exercise is required to be made by the appropriate Government within period of three months from today. The award dated 04th May, 2006 shall be having no adverse effect on adjudication of the industrial dispute now required to be referred by the appropriate Government in terms of this order. No order as to costs. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma