SBCWP6567/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6567/1997 Mantri, Lok Seva Sangh, Near Railway Crossing, Sikar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sahdev Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 04.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Kapil M. Chandra for Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri Amit Singh Shekhawat, Counsel for respondents-workmen #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner against Award dated 21.10.1994 by which retrenchment of respondents-workmen was held to be illegal. Petitioner was directed to reinstate them in service and grant each of them back wages in the sum of Rs.40,000/-. Petitioner subsequently filed an application before Labour Court under Section 20(2) read with Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 seeking amendment in the Award. The application was rejected by detailed order dated 30.09.1997. Both orders are impugned in the present writ petition. SBCWP6567/1997 // 2 // Shri Kapil M. Chandra, holding brief of Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that respondents earlier filed an application under Payment of Wages Act before competent authority claiming amount of wages awarded by Labour Court and, when those cases were pending, the petitioner came to know that during the period from 16.03.1982 to 22.02.1995 both respondents-workmen have been working with Sat Sangh Social and Welfare Society, Sikar, on payment of Rs.1100/- per month. It was on that basis that application for modification/correction of the Award was filed. The learned Labour Court mechanically rejected that application. Learned counsel submitted that the application could not be rejected as the Award could be modified at any time before it is published and become enforceable by virtue of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was argued that service of respondents-workmen was never terminated and that they were engaged on contract basis and paid on piece rate basis. They were provided job work and thereunder they were to take wool from the petitioner to spin the same for preparation of blankets and thereafter were paid on the basis of work done. SBCWP6567/1997 // 3 // The fact that respondents were engaged elsewhere was concealed from the Labour Court. In any case, a direction for their reinstatement could not be issued because the petitioner used to give wool to respondents- workmen to spin the same for preparation of blankets under the scheme supported by the Government of India. Now that scheme has come to an end and they could not be directed to be reinstated back. Shri Amit Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel for respondents-workmen, has opposed writ petition and submitted that alleged facts with regard to engagement of respondents- workmen with Sat Sangh Social and Welfare Society, Sikar were never brought to notice of the Labour Court at the time when reference case was being contested by the petitioner. Once the Award has been passed, it cannot be interfered with lightly and that the application for modification thereof cannot be entertained only because petitioner could not produce certain evidence/documents which he subsequently wanted to produce. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has already moulded the relief by restricting the claim of back wages to each of respondents-workman only SBCWP6567/1997 // 4 // upto Rs.40,000/-. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that contention that respondents-workmen were not employees of petitioner and that their appointment was not made on regular basis ever since they were appointed, rather petitioner provided them work on piece rate basis, cannot be accepted. The learned Labour Court in my view rightly rejected this contention relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopalji Jha Shastri & Others Vs. State of Bihar – 1983 (II) LLJ (SC) 22, in which it was held that payment of wages on piece rate basis is one of the modes of appointment. Only because that workmen are paid wages on piece rate basis, does not mean that their appointment was contractual in nature or that there was no relationship of 'mater and servant as no other evidence is available to the effect that such appointment was on contract basis or that there was no 'master and servant' relationship as alleged by petitioner before the Tribunal. On subsequent application on the basis of some information which petitioner gathered after the Award was passed, cannot be a reason to modify the Award. However, I am inclined to uphold the SBCWP6567/1997 // 5 // contention of petitioner that the respondents- workmen cannot be reinstated because the scheme under which they were engaged itself came to an end and that they were in the meantime engaged elsewhere. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be modified and instead of requiring the petitioner to reinstate the respondents-workmen in service, it is directed that each of them shall be paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement for full and final settlement of their all claims, which amount shall be paid to the respondents-workmen within a period of one months from the date a copy of this order is produced by them before the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//