KISHNA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is filed by the appellant workman against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5700/93, whereby, the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sub - Division, Raniwara, District Jalore against the impugned award dated 22.1.1993' passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in favour of the workman ordering reinstatement of workman in service with full back wages from the date of termination dated 19.10.1987.

(2.) THE appellant workman claims that he was initially engaged as helper in village Karda -Diga, Water Supply Project in 1982. In 1985 he got the status of work charged employee and paid Rs. 548/ - per month. Without following the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Public Works Uepartmenl (Building and Roads) including Gardens Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work -Charged Employees Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules') his services were terminated by an order dated 19.10.1987. The Slate Govt. made reference in 1990 to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. On behalf of the Department reply was filed before the Labour Court staling that he (workman) had not assumed the charge from March, 1982 and by and large he used to remain absent. His work on the Water Project was not found satisfactory, therefore, he was transferred on 14.5.1987 !o other place, but he did not join at the place where he was transferred. For remaining absent from duty and that his services were not found satisfactorily, his explanation was called for, but he had nol replied the same. He was semi permanent laborer, but he had never completed 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act will not be applicable. In their additional statement, it has been stated thai prior to passing of the termination order, the workman remained absent from duty without any leave or prior information from 27.5.1987 to .6.6.87 and, thereafter, once again he remained absent from duty from 2.9.87 to 19.10.87. Thus, he had left the job on his own.

(3.) FROM the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Courl has held that prior to termination of his services no departmental enquiry was held nor the workman was charge sheeted for his mis -conduct of remaining absent from duty. Therefore, the termination order was not in accordance with law. While declaring the termination bad, the Labour Court was very much conscious of the fact that for remaining absent from duty the. workman was served with notices from time to lime and the workman failed to reply any of those notices, but according to the Labour Court the same cannot be the basis of his termination.