IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 639 of 1998 KANA V/S STATE & ORS Mr. PR MEHTA, for the appellant / petitioner. Mr.O.P. BOOB, ADDL.G.A. Date of Order : 3.3.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, and upholding the award, passed by the learned Labour Court. The facts, necessary for the present controversy are, that the appellant petitioner claimed to be working as “Beldar”, having been appointed on 1.1.1980, and thereafter, he was removed in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereupon, he approached the Conciliation Officer, where the conciliation proceedings failed. Then, the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the controversy was joined about the petitioner having worked for the period, as claimed. The learned Labour Court found, that the evidence, available on record, is obscure and insufficient. However, after having considered the record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion, that in calendar year of 1982, appellant worked for 122 days, and in calendar year 1983, he worked for 216 days. However, if the Sundays and gazetted holidays are included as working days, then he has completed 240 days. In the year 1984, he is found to have worked for 5 days. Then, the learned Labour Court further found, that since the appellant has not completed 240 days in the calendar year 1983, and worked for 5 days in 1984 and, therefore, his removal, without payment of compensation, was found to be not requiring any interference. However, on humanitarian consideration, it was directed, that payable compensation for his having worked in the year 1983, and consequent payable gratuity, be paid within a period of two months. In writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed, 2 that the Labour Court found the petitioner to have worked for 120 days in 1982, 216 days in 1983, and only five days in 1984, therefore, no fault was found with the award of the Labour court. Assailing the impugned judgment, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that a look at the award of the Labour Court, being Annex.10 to the writ petition, does show, that the Labour Court had found, that if gazetted holidays and Sundays are included as working days, then he has completed 240 days in the calendar year 1983, and since, admittedly, the appellant had been removed, without complying with the provisions of Section 25F, he should have been reinstated, with back wages, and all consequential benefits, more so, when it is established legal position, that the Saturdays and Sundays are required to be included as working days. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. We have heard learned counsel, and also considered their submissions. In our view, when the learned Labour court has found, that in the year 1983, the appellant had completed 240 days, it could not be held that his removal was valid, despite non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 3 The question then arises is, that as to what relief should be given to the appellant. In our view, as is clear from the above narration, that the appellant claims to have been appointed in the year 1980, and he worked for a very scant period of time, and it is only in the year 1983, that he has been technically found to have completed 240 days, by including Sundays, and other gazetted holidays. This, coupled with the fact, that the matter is very old, and keeping in view the spirit & recent trend of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we think it proper, that instead of ordering reinstatement, the appellant should be awarded an all told compensation of Rs. ten thousand, payment whereof will satisfy all claims of the appellant, with regard to his having worked with the respondents. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and the award of the Labour Court, are modified, in the manner, that it is found that appellant's removal was in violation of Section 25 of the ID Act. However, the appellant is awarded an all told compensation of Rs.10,000/-, for all his claims, with respect to working with the respondents. This amount is directed to be paid within a period of two months, failing which, this amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum with effect from today, and the appellant will be free to recover this amount, by taking appropriate proceedings 4 before the Labour court. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. RANKAWAT JK,PS 5