CW 4061/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4061/2006 State & (3) Ors. Versus Smt. Dhapu Bai & Judge Labour Court, Kota Date of Order ::: 10/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. JKAgrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State (petitioners) Mr. K.C Sharma, for respondent workman Instant petition has been filed by State assailing Award dt.13/12/2001 passed by the Labour Court Kota in Indl.Ref.No.1/2000. As alleged in her statement of claim, respondent workman was appointed on 18/04/1981 in the cadre of Class IV on daily wage of Rs.22/- and continuously worked in Government Upper Primary Schools upto 06/01/92 when her services were terminated without compliance of statutory provisions of S.25-F, S.25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”). After the dispute was raised by workman before conciliation Officer, a Reference was made by appropriate Government vide notification dt. 07/08/99. After notices were served on the petitioner (employer), no one appeared on their behalf and accordingly ex parte proceedings against petitioner-State were initiated vide order dt.07/03/01, as referred to by Labour court in para 4 of the Award impugned. CW 4061/06 //2// Respondent workman in support of her claim submitted an affidavit inter-alia deposing that apart from her working from 18/04/81 to 06/01/92, she was neither gainfully engaged nor employed elsewhere pendente proceedings before Labour Court. However, since there was no written statement or supporting documents placed by petitioner-State on record, the Labour Court proceeded on the basis of statement of claim duly supported by her affidavit and documents placed on record; and accordingly recorded a finding that the workman had worked more than 240 days in preceding 12 months of the date of her alleged termination; and finally held that termination was totally in violation of S.25-F of the Act. As regards back wages, Labour Court observed that since the workman submitted her complaint before conciliation Officer after about 4 years & 6 months, it dis-entitles her of wages for intervening period; as such held that she is entitled for 25% back wages for rest of the period vide Award dt.13/12/2001, which has been assailed by the State by way of instant petition. Government Counsel inter-alia submits that an inference can be drawn from the Award CW 4061/06 //3// that as employment of workman was purely on daily wages basis, therefore, the Labour Court committed an error in reinstating the workman being daily wagers even if there being violation of S.25-F of the Act; and that apart, 25% back wages awarded to her are also not duly supported by material on record. Counsel for workman while supporting findings recorded under Award impugned submits as regards the delay, after her services were terminated, she approached this Court by way of CWP-3446/92 wherein, since an objection was raised that the workman has got alternative remedy under Industrial Disputes Act; therefore, on that premise alone, her writ petition was dismissed vide order dt.05/09/96 – xerox copy whereof has been shown during arguments; and without any further delay thereafter, she approached conciliation Officer on whose behest, a Reference was made by appropriate Government for adjudication. From the Award impugned, it is clear that respondent workman was initially engaged on daily wage of in April, 1981 in the cadre of Class IV and she continuously worked upto 06/01/92 and without complying with requirement of S.25-F of the Act, her services were CW 4061/06 //4// terminated. This Court does not find any manifest error in the finding recorded by Labour Court regarding action of employer (petitioner) being in violation of S.25-F of the Act. As regards the delay in raising dispute, respondent workman has brought to the notice of this Court that earlier workman had preferred writ petition which was dismissed vide order dt.05/09/96 (supra) on the premise of availability of an alternative remedy under law - in view whereof, for such a delay allegedly on the part of workman while belatedly raising industrial dispute; otherwise also, the Labour Court has taken note of this fact and awarded no back wages for such intervening period, inasmuch as she has been held to be entitled for 25% back wages that too from 18/07/96 only. As regards contention raised by Government Counsel for award of back wages, the Labour Court having taken note of affidavit of workman wherein she deposed that she was not gainfully engaged after alleged termination; to which there was no rebuttal or contrary material placed by State on record, this Court does not find any error in holding her to be entitled for 25% back wages. Submission of Government Counsel that on account of workman being engaged as daily wager, CW 4061/06 //5// her reinstatement under Award impugned was totally illegal, in the facts & circumstances narrated (supra), is of no substance for the reason that respondent workman had worked for sufficient long time since 18/04/81 to 06/01/92 continuously almost for a decade and no justification for her alleged termination came on record and thereafter she has continuously approached appropriate government for grant of relief and the delay having caused in getting her dispute finally adjudicated in no manner can be solely attributed to respondent workman, inasmuch as certainly once there was violation of S.25-F of the Act in terminating her from service, as a consequence whereof, reinstatement was rightly ordered vide Award impugned which does not call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/4061CW06I-1012-ID.doc