CW 2847/96 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2847/1996 Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Versus Judge, Labour Court & Anr. Date of Order ::: 25/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Shiv Garg, for petitioner None, for respondent-2 Instant petition has been filed assailing Award dt.29/09/95 (Ann.3) whereby Labour Court, Jaipur ordered to reinstate respondent-2 (workman) in service with continuity & back wages @ Rs.2,000/- per annum while setting aside her termination. Respondent workman raised an industrial dispute in regard to termination of her service rendered as Stenographer being given effect vide order dt.02/07/85 – on the basis whereof, Reference was made by appropriate Government vide notification dt. 15/09/87 for adjudication of dispute before Labour Court Jaipur as to whether terminating service of workman vide order dt.02/07/85 by employer (RTDC) is legal and valid; and if not, what relief, she is entitled for. It has come on record that workman was appointed as Stenographer purely on ad hoc basis on 30/07/83 on monthly wages of Rs.658/- CW 2847/96 //2// and her services were extended but since she failed to acquire minimum qualification of higher secondary School examination - taking note whereof, her services were dispensed with and at that time, notice pay & compensation of Rs.1361.75p. in compliance of S.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) was offered to her and for which, cash voucher was prepared for making payment to her, but she refused to accept the same. In support, during adjudication, debit cash voucher dt.02/07/85 besides copy of register and letter of General Manager of RTDC were also produced in evidence on record to show that voucher was prepared for making payment to the workman towards notice pay & compensation; and statements of three witnesses (Bishan Lal Meena, Madhu Nidhi & Rajendra Saxena) were recorded to show that money was offered to the workman which she failed to accept. No evidence in counter thereto came on record. After taking note of material, Labour Court recorded finding that since petitioner failed to make compliance of S.25-F of ID Act, as a consequence whereof, order of termination dt.02/07/85 was considered to be illegal and ordered for her reinstatement with continuity CW 2847/96 //3// in service alongwith back wages @ Rs.2,000/- per annum for each year. It appears that service of notices could not be effected upon respondent workman therefore, substituted service was permitted - in pursuance whereof, notices were got published in news paper twice yet no one has appeared on behalf of respondent workman despite substituted service of notice and by interim order dt.27/08/96, reinstatement in terms of Award impugned remained stayed. I have considered contention of Counsel for petitioner and with his assistance, examined material on record. Once the workman was appointed as Stenographer purely on ad hoc basis and she did not acquire minimum education qualification of Higher Secondary School Examination which was requisite at the relevant time to hold the post of Stenographer. Indisputably she was not holding minimum educational qualification and despite opportunity afforded, when she failed to acquire the same, the decision was taken to terminate her services after compliance of S.25-F of ID Act. As regards termination, since impugned terminations are also covered under term CW 2847/96 //4// “retrenchment” U/s 2(oo) of ID Act and petitioner employer was under obligation to comply with S.25-F of ID Act. According to the case set up by petitioner employer before Labour Court, debit voucher and statements of witnesses were recorded in support of its case and taking note whereof, certainly there was cogent material on record which could substantiate about the offer being made of compensation to respondent workman. In the opinion of this Court, finding recorded by Labour Court in regard to non-compliance of S.25-F of ID Act in the facts of instant case (supra) appears to be perverse and is not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Award dt.29/09/95 (Ann.3) is hereby quashed & set aside. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/2847CW96Aug25ID.doc