SBCWP4226/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4226/1997 Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction Corporation Limited, Unit Sawaimadhopur Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 19.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondent State None present for Respondent No.3 Rajneesh Kumar Jain #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.3- workman. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridege & Construction Corporation Limited, Unit Sawaimadhopur, against Award dated 25.07.1996 of learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. A reference raising industrial dispute was made to Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the question whether action of petitioner in terminating services of respondent-workman with SBCWP4226/1997 // 2 // effect from 24.08.1987 was legal and valid and, if not, what relief was he entitled to? Learned Labour Court answered the reference in terms that removal of respondent-workman by petitioner from services was made in violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act') and, therefore, directed his reinstatement with continuity in service, but confined payment of back wages only for period from 25.08.1987 to 13.09.1988 and not thereafter up-to the date of Award. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that respondent-workman was given offer of reinstatement, which fact he has admitted in his cross-examination but he insisted that he would work on the post of Store-Munshi whereas he was offered reemployment on the post of Helper on which he originally worked and, taking note of this fact, the Labour Court has declined to grant him back wages for the period subsequent to such offer was made. However, the learned Labour Court wrongly held that there was violation of Section 25F of the ID Act in issuing notice on 26.05.1987 to respondent- workman whereby it was conveyed that his services shall stand terminated with effect from 30.06.1987. It was sufficient compliance SBCWP4226/1997 // 3 // of Section 25F of the ID Act. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that in so far as alleged shortage of compensation is concerned, the same was also tendered to respondent-workman by Cheque of Rs.294.50p., dated 25.08.1987, which was sent to respondent-workman through their peon Laxmandas but respondent-workman declined to accept the Cheque and, therefore, it should be taken as sufficient compliance of Section 25F. Learned counsel in this connection referred to statement of Shri A.P. Pandey, Assistant Engineer, who was got examined as a witness on their behalf before the Labour Court. Learned counsel submitted that once respondent-workman has admitted that he received the amount of Rs.917.40p., towards compensation, and did not object about correctness of computation thereof at the time when he received the same he could not sufficiently raise such objection and if there was any deficiency, the same was made good when subsequently he was offered remaining amount of Rs.294.50p., by Cheque. Therefore, there is no case of violation of Section 25F of the ID Act. The Labour Court was wholly unjustified in holding termination of respondent-workman as illegal. The learned SBCWP4226/1997 // 4 // counsel further submitted that respondent- workman, subsequent to the date of termination of his services on 30.06.1987, further worked with the petitioner for some more time and that was done on his own request. In any case so far violation of Section 25F of the ID Act cannot be taken as proved. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing impugned Award, I find that learned Labour Court in Para 10 of the Award has discussed evidence on the question of violation of Section 25F. Learned Labour Court has noted the fact that mount of Rs.917.40p., was received by respondent-workman on 13.07.1987, which is evident from his statement recorded before the Labour Court. Argument of respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that since the period for which respondent- workman worked with petitioner has exceeded one and a half year therefore he was entitled to wages of 75 days towards compensation as contemplated by Section 25F of the ID Act and this amount comes to Rs.1162.50p. In the first phase, amount of Rs.917.40p., was found to have been paid on 13.07.1987, secondly there was no evidence which could be believed that respondent-workman was given/tendered Cheque of SBCWP4226/1997 // 5 // Rs.294.50p., on 25.08.1987. All that what the petitioner contended is that the Cheque was issued on 25.08.1987 but this fact by itself could not be taken as proof that the Cheque was in fact tendered to respondent-workman on that date. Their witness Shri A.P. Pandey, Assistant Engineer, in his statement, when subjected to cross-examination on this aspect, stated that this Cheque was sent for being delivered to respondent-workman through Peon by their office, merely stated that this Cheque was sent to respondent-workman through the Peon but respondent-workman declined to accept the same. Curiously this witness does not name the peon either in his affidavit or even in the cross- examination. In cross-examination he further stated that management has not produced the peon in order to prove the fact of refusal of Cheque to receive by respondent-workman. When respondent-workman was asked in the cross- examination about this fact, he denied that Laxmandas ever offered to give him the said Cheque. This aspect of the matter has thus not been proved before the Labour Court by the petitioner. The finding of learned Labour Court on the record about non-compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act, therefore, cannot be SBCWP4226/1997 // 6 // faulted. However, keeping in view the fact that respondent-workman was removed from service by petitioner as far back as on 24.08.1987, of which reference was made by Notification dated 05.07.1988 and Award was passed on 25.07.1996, and almost 23 years have gone since the date of retrenchment, it is not considered appropriate to now require the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman when he has already declined to join when offered reinstatement by the petitioner, and ends of justice would meet if direction issued by the Labour Court of his reinstatement with continuity of service and for payment of back wages for part of the period, is substituted by that of payment of lumpsum compenation to respondent-workman. The Award is modified in terms that the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to respondent-workman towards full and final settlement of all his claims. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to respondent-workman for information. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//