1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5147/2002. : : Ganesh Vs. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Anr. : : Date of Order 8.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Suresh Kashyap for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Kala for respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 19.4.2001 whereby reference on the question of validity of termination of petitioner-workman has been answered by Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in terms that there was no violation of Section 25-F, G & H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. 3. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the aforesaid award has argued that Labour Court refused to examine merits of the case for the 2 reason that in terms of reference, 21.12.1985 was referred to be mentioned as date of removal whereas in the statement of claim such date was mentioned as 1.1.1986 and 31.12.1985 was stated till when petitioner was lastly worked with the respondents. Learned counsel submitted that apart from that, petitioner had also alleged violation of Section 25- G & H for two persons who were regularised in service, but nothing was discussed. Labour Court simply held that petitioner being a daily wages employee was free to attend his duties or not to attend as per his will, and that there would be no question of violation of Section 25-F G & H of Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel relied on judgment of this Court in Chail Singh Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur & Ors. : 2007 (1) CDR 769 (Raj.) and in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Geeta Bai & Anr. : WLC (Raj.) 2007 (5), 466 and argued that even if there was disparity between the terms of reference and the statement of claim with regard to date of removal of petitioner, matter should have been referred to appropriate government for getting the typographical error corrected before the learned Labour Court itself and case should be examined on merits rather than throwing it away on the ground of such disparity and the matter be remanded on that note. 3 4. Shri R. A. Katta, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and submitted that case of petitioner not only in regard to date of removal, but also date of his initial date of appointment became doubtful. Learned Labour Court was not under obligation to correct such mistake. Even otherwise, there was no evidence that the petitioner had completed 240 days. Learned counsel submitted that as regards the nature of employment, the Labour Court was fully justified in arriving its conclusion, which has been done in view of law laid down in Shashi Kant Vs. State of Rajasthan : WLC (Raj.) UC 1996, 358. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that Labour Court has in the present case in the earlier part of award mentioned about disparity of dates as indicated by petitioner in the statement of claim and the affidavit in contradictions with the dates so indicated in the terms of reference and has held that in view of such disparity, claim of petitioner became doubtful. The Labour Court however in later part of award held that evidence produced by the parties shows that a daily wages employee was free to come or not to come at work and he 4 could attend the duties when he chooses to do so. For conclusion Labour Court sought to rely on the statement of claim and affidavit filed by petitioner and its reply and counter affidavit filed by respondents, but then no discussion whatsoever has been made as to what is stated in such affidavits and other affidavits filed by the parities and there is absolutely no finding on the question of Section 25-F, G & H of the Act. This Court in Chail Singh (supra) was dealing with somewhat similar case in which that due to typographic error in the statement of claim the date upto which workman worked with employer was referred to as 30.11.1991 instead of 30.11.1990 and statement of claim and on that basis in the affidavit and in all further proceedings such mistake accrued. This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to Labour Court allowing the workman to get the statement of claim corrected and lead evidence accordingly and however allowing the management to file fresh reply to amended claim. In Smt. Geeta Bai (supra) also the dispute was with regard to disparity between the date of removal as shown in terms of reference and date of removal as indicated in statement of claim. The Labour Court nevertheless held termination of workman as bad in law. State of Rajasthan has come up in writ petition passed by Labour Court. This Court 5 on analysis of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act held that Legislature has intended to cover not only the principal dispute referred to Labour Court for their adjudication, but also all other incidental disputes thereto or connected therewith. According to Section 10 (supra) where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may any time, by order in writing refer the dispute to a Board, Court of Enquiry, Labour Court for adjudication or the Tribunal for adjudication. What is referred as an industrial dispute is not just the dispute but also the matters which appears to be connected therewith or relevant thereto. If the date of removal in the terms of reference was mentioned as 31.1.1996 but the workmen in their statement of claim came out with the correct date which according to them was in fact 31.12.1995, it cannot be said that the Labour while exercising its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the referred dispute was completely divested of its authority to adjudicate upon the industrial dispute referred to it just because there was some variation between the date of termination as mentioned in terms of reference and the one asserted by the workman in statement of claim. In view of above discussions, in my considered view the Labour Court ought to have also examined the merit 6 of the case. The award has thus not been passed as required by law. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 19.4.2001 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Labour Court, Jaipur for its adjudication on merits. The parties would be at liberty to agitate their all such arguments about violation or otherwise of statutory provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H and raise such questions in the scope of terms of reference as have been urged before this Court. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.41.