1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5994/2007 Shri Sanwaliyaji Mandir Mandal v. Ashok Kumar Bansal & Anr. Date of Order :: 23 rd October, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. B.R.Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.Rajpurohit, for the respondents. .... By an award dated 28.6.2005 the Labour Court, Bhilwara answered the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 28.10.2003 in the terms that whether termination of workman Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Mannalal by his employer Chief Executive Officer, Shri Sanwaliyaji Mandir Mandal, Mandafia District Chittorgarh w.e.f. 19.5.1991 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled? Learned Labour Court, after considering whatever material available on record, reached at the conclusion that the workman was employed with the Mandir Mandal on 1.4.1984 and he was illegally terminated from service on 19.5.1991. As per the Labour Court the termination of the workman was made by way of retrenchment without adhering mandatory 2 condition precedents to do so. Learned Labour Court also held that the retrenchment was made in violation of the principle of last come first go as enshrined under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). Accordingly, a direction was given to reinstate the workman with 50% of back wages. The employer submitted an application under Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1950”) to recall the award dated 28.6.2005 but that came to be rejected by an order dated 4.4.2007. While rejecting the application aforesaid the Labour Court held that no just reason was given by the employer for not attending court proceedings after 26.4.2005. The Labour Court also held that the award dated 28.6.2005 has already acquired finality on its publication as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1947, therefore, no action to recall the award could be now taken. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2007 and the award dated 28.6.2005, this petition for writ is preferred. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to challenge the award dated 28.6.2005. It is stated that the respondent workman was retrenched from service by Sanwaliyaji Temple Committee and not by the Sanwaliyaji Mandir Mandal i.e. a statutory body 3 enacted under the Sanwaliyaji Temple Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1992”). It is also stated that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the dispute was raised by the workman after a lapse of 12 years from the date of his retrenchment without assigning any just reason. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the Sanwaliyaji Temple was earlier managed by the society registered under the Societies Registration Act and under the Act of 1992 a Board was created. As a matter of fact the Board created under the Act of 1992 is nothing but successor employer and, therefore, all the liabilities relating to the respondent workman automatically stood transferred to the present employer i.e. the Sanwaliyaji Mandir Mandal. The argument relating to raising the dispute at a belated stage is also of no consequence as the Labour Court in specific terms stated in the award itself that the workman raised the dispute after his acquittal from criminal charges, those were the reasons for terminating him from service. As such I do not find any error in the award impugned. I also do not find any error in the order dated 4.4.2007 passed by the Labour Court under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1950 as no good effort was made by the employer to get the exparte set aside diligently. 4 The petition for writ stands dismissed accordingly. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.