1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2641/2006 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and another. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2641/2006 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and another. Date : 13.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RK Jain ) for the petitioner. Mr.DR Lunkar ) Mr.Sunil Bhandari, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. A dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the order of the Government dated 25.10.99. The dispute was “Whether the action Branch Manager, Nation Insurance Company Ltd , Bhilwara in terminating the service of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Parasar S/O Sh. Shanti Lal Parasar w.e.f. 1.12.98 is legal and justified ? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?” 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2641/2006 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and another. After the reference reached to the Labour Court, the respondent/employee submitted his statement of claim alleging that he worked with the petitioner/employer from 1.10.93 to 30.11.98 as Class-IV employee. His services have been terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That contention was denied by the petitioner by stating that the respondent was not regularly selected candidate nor he was given posting on a particular post though some work was taken from him but for very short period. It has been admitted that the employee started working with the petitioner from the year 1993 and he worked upto 1998 but as stated above, according to the petitioner, in none of the years, the respondent worked for more than 240 days. The respondent and petitioner both produced their evidence. The respondent's statement is that he worked regularly from 1993 to 1998. It will be worthwhile to mention here that an application was submitted for inspection of record 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2641/2006 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and another. of the petitioner by the respondent upon which inspection was allowed as is evident from the order-sheet dated 19.12.2002 (Annex.P/7). The petitioner also submitted application on 7.4.2003 (Annex.P/8) wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is submitting copies of the documents which have also been inspected by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Labour Court committed grave error of law by ignoring documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and furthermore by accepting part of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and by rejecting part of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. It is submitted that even the statement of the respondent has not been considered properly by the Labour Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not appointed in regular cadre nor on a particular post, therefore, he could not have been reinstated on any post and, therefore, he cannot be reinstated on any of the posts. It is submitted 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2641/2006 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and another. that the respondent has been awarded reinstatement with consequential benefits and 50% of back wages and the respondent since was a daily wager, therefore, he was not entitled to such relief. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and though it is not appellate jurisdiction and the jurisdiction has its own limitation under Article 227 of the Constitution of India yet at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, I perused the documentary evidence placed on record and found that the documentary evidence has been considered by the Labour Court in detail and each and every document has been referred in the judgment. The Labour Court was of the view that the totality of the facts and preponderance of probabilities clearly suggest that the respondent worked with the petitioner from 1993 to 1998. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner submitted an affidavit of one Shri M.C. Maheshwari who after stating that the respondent worked for few days in 5 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2641/2006 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and another. few months of particular years of 1993 and 1994, then in para no.5 at page 47 of the writ petition, he stated that the respondent thereafter worked from April, 1995 and he was paid accordingly time to time. Then in para no.8, he stated that it is wrong to say that the respondent worked upto 1.12.98 continuously and it is wrong to say that his services have been terminated from 14.9.98. The statement of the petitioner's witness is quiet vague so far as service period of the respondent employee from 1995 is concerned. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, the documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner and whatever evidence they have produced that shows that the respondent was paid the wages for the days for which he worked. From these documents, it cannot be inferred that the respondent did not work for other days for which evidence has not been produced by the petitioner. The totality of the facts clearly suggests that the respondent was dependent on the employment in question since 1993 to 1998. 6 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2641/2006 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara and another. In view of the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned award whereby the Labour Court has only held that the petitioner's termination of service from 1.12.98 is not legal. Looking to the length of the period for which the petitioner served and that is from 1993 to 1998, reinstatement has been allowed by the Labour Court with 50% back wages, then it cannot be said that the respondent employee should have been granted only compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya