CW 1223/96 //1// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1223/1996. State of Rajasthan Vs. Lal Chand & anr. (2)S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5825/2001. State of Rajasthan Vs. Lal Chand & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 03/09/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Chetan Bairwa, Addl Govt Counsel, for petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, for respondent-workman. Since both the writ petitions arise from the common proceedings, hence are decided by the present order. Writ Petition No. 1223/1996 has been filed against the award dated 01/03/1994 whereby the learned Labour Court has held that the action of the petitioner-State in terminating the services of the respondent workman is illegal and unjustified being violative of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the respondent-workman has been held entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service. The other writ petition, bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 5825/2001 has been filed by the petitioner-State assailing the order dated 01/09/2001 by which the learned Labour Court, CW 1223/96 //2// while allowing the application filed by the respondent-workman under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act of 1947, has computed a sum of Rs. 1,77,261/- till the date of award dated 01/03/1994 and has directed the petitioner- State to pay the said amount to the respondent-workman within one month, failing which the workman was held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the petitioner-State. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-workman filed statement of claim in which it was alleged that he was appointed as Store Munshi on 24th November, 1984 and the petitioner-State arbitrarily dispensed with his services w.e.f. 01/06/1985 without due compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The petitioner-State filed its written statement before the Labour Court and raised two basic objections that the respondent workman was never engaged as Store Munshi and he was appointed as Beldar and had not completed 240 days of service in preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination. As such, there was no need for them to comply CW 1223/96 //3// with the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. It will be relevant to mention that the appropriate Government itself made a reference vide its notification dated 20/02/1987 holding the respondent-workman working as Store Munshi has referred as to whether the termination of his services was justified or not and what relief he is entitled for. However, the learned Labour Court, after taking into consideration the material which came on record, recorded a finding of fact that the respondent-workman was initially engaged on 22nd November, 1984 and there is a documentary evidence to hold that his initial engagement was on the post of Store Munshi. This fact is further fortified from the other material which has come on record apart from the reference made by the appropriate Government (supra) also. A charge sheet was served upon the concerned Assistant Engineer alleging as to how appointment had been given to the respondent-workman as Store Munshi contrary to the rules and how the wages of the Store Munshi were paid to him. There is nothing on record about the fate of the charge sheet (Annexure-3) served upon the then Assistant CW 1223/96 //4// Engineer, Navalgarh but this fact remain uncontroverted that the appointment of the respondent-workman was on the post of Store Munshi and not as Beldar as alleged by the petitioner-State. Apart form it, so far as the question of working of the respondent-workman for a period of 240 days in the preceding 12 months is concerned, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that after he was engaged initially on 22/11/1984 he continuously worked and upto May, 1985 his wages were paid to him. However, application was filed by him before the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of wages from June, 1985 to January, 1986 and an order was passed for making payment of wages to him for the aforesaid period and the appeal preferred by the petitioner-State against the order of prescribed authority under the Payment of wages Act was also rejected by the learned District Judge. Therefore, for all practical purposes the respondent workman had worked and paid wages upto 31st January, 1986. Taking note thereof, it was established that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the CW 1223/96 //5// alleged date of termination and indisputably, the petitioner-State has failed to comply with the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 in absence whereof the alleged termination of the respondent-workman as Store Munshi was illegal and bad in law. No material has been placed by the petitioner-State on record before this Court by which the finding which has been recorded by the learned Labour Court under award impugned can at all be interfered with. But at the same time, the learned Labour Court, while passing the award in regard to his reinstatement and continuity of services of the respondent-workman, has granted him full back wages for which there is no material placed by the respondent-workman to show that he was not gainfully employed during pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court and in absence whereof the award in regard to grant of full back wages to the respondent- workman certain requires interference of this Court. So far as the second writ petition bearing CWP No. 5825/2001 is concerned, it has been filed against the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of CW 1223/96 //6// 1947 computing wages in terms of award. Since this Court has observed that the respondent- workman was not entitled for back wages under the impugned award, the order passed by the Labour Court in exercise of its powers under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947 dated 01/09/2001 cannot be said to be legally sustainable. Consequently, CWP No. 1223/1996 is partly allowed and the award dated 01/03/1994 impugned is set aside to the extent of grant of back wages and CWP No. 5825/2001 is allowed and order dated 01/09/2001, passed by the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947 is accordingly quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.6/ 1223cw1996-final.doc