1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3285/1994 Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. Date of order : 16/10/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Virendra Lodha for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Rathore for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank chellenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 2.12.1993. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government on the question whether the action of the management of the petitioner in terminating the services of the respondent-workman, a daily rated employee, working with them on part time basis with effect from 9.6.1983 is legally justified and if not to what relief he is entitled to? The learned Labour Court upon consideration of the evidence of the matter and arguments held that removal / retrenchment of the respondent-workman by 2 management of the petitioner from their services was violative of provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act and held him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without any back wages. Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent merely worked with the petitioners for the period from 1.5.1981 to 9.6.1983 and that he was only working on part time basis. He was removed by the petitioner and in fact he himself abandoned the job and did not come to attend his duties assigned to him. In such a case there was no basis for the Tribunal to hold that the petitioner violated the provisions of Section 25-F. It was argued that the dispute itself was referred to Industrial Tribunal belatedly on 19.8.1991 and whereas the alleged retrenchment took place on 9.6.1983. There was thus a delay of more than 8 years. In such a case, the Tribunal ought not to have directed for reinstatement of the respondent. It was alternatively argued that the recent approach of the law in such a 3 like case is that instead of directing reinstatement, the workman should be awarded lump sum compensation. Shri G.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has on the basis of evidence led before it recorded a finding of fact that the respondent actually worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in the callender year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment and that in fact his working period was more than two years. The plea of the management that the respondent abandoned the service was not believed and which even otherwise cannot be believed because the respondent has regularly contesting the matter. It was submitted that once when the terminus is held to be illegal, relief for reinstatement has to follow as a matter of post. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that the learned Labour Court on evidence that was led before it, has arrived at the finding (i) that the 4 respondent worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in the callender year immediately preceding the date of retrenchment, (ii) that there were junior persons still in the employment of the petitioner than the respondent, (iii) that the respondent did not voluntarily abandoned the service, (iv) that there was violation of provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Industrial Tribunal arrived at these findings on analysis of the statement of the respondent-workman as well as the statement of Shanti Lal Jain, the representative of the petitioner. The award of the learned Labour Court therefore cannot be valid on merits. However, the question arises whether at this stage when the present petition is being decided in the year 2008, the writ petitioner who was retrenched on 9.6.1983 can be directed to be reinstated in service. In the present case, there is one additional factor that was in favour of the lump sum compensation, rather than directing reinstatement of the respondent when the 5 reference itself is made to the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government belatedly on 19.8.1991 whereas the reinstatement was made on 9.6.1983. There was thus a delay of more than 8 years in that making of the reference. At this stage, directing reinstatement of the respondent may not be justified. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in Rolston John vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court & Ors.-1995 Supp (4) SCC 549 and a judgement of this Court in Vikas Adhikari & Anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr.-2007 (2) 740. For all the aforesaid reasons, the direction of the Labour Court for reinstatement of the respondent deserves to be modified while upholding the other part of the award. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed while the finding of the Labour Court holding the reinstatement of the respondent was illegal is upheld but the direction for his reinstatement is set aside and instead of, the petitioner is directed 6 to pay to him a sum of Rs.75,000/- as lump sum compensation for full and final settlement of his claims. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/