STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RICHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 14. 3. 2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment and award dated 1. 4. 1997 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner (respondent no. 2) by which termination of services of the respondent no. 1 Richpal Singh with effect from 24. 9. 1981 was held to be not proper and invalid and thus, the respondent no. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and he was awarded a sum of Rs. 3000/- as back wages, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:- Through Notification dated 7. 11. 1992, the State Government in exercise of power under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") made reference to the Labour Court, Bikaner (respondent no. 2) to the effect whether the retrenchment of the respondent no. 1 Richpal Singh by the petitioners with effect from 24. 9. 1981 was just and proper or not. On receipt of that reference, the respondent no. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner registered the case being Labour Dispute Reference No. 3/1993 and issued notices to both the parties. THEreafter, the respondent no. 1 Richpal Singh filed his claim petition (Annex. 3) stating inter-alia that he was appointed on 24. 2. 1979 and continuously worked upto 24. 9. 1981 and thus, he had completed 240 days in a calendar year. It was further stated by the respondent no. 1 that his services were suddenly terminated with effect 24. 9. 1981 without giving one month's notice or in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice and thus, termination of his services was in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947. Hence, it was prayed by the respondent no. 1 that termination of his services with effect from 24. 9. 1981 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and he be reinstated back in service, with all consequential benefits. A reply to the claim petition (Annex. 3) was filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner through Annex. 4 stating inter-alia that the respondent no. 1 was first engaged vide order dated 24. 3. 1979 (Annex. 1) under famine relief work as Driver to carry the water to the remote areas during the course of famine. THEreafter, the respondent no. 1 again exhibited desire to be engaged on famine relief work on Famine Water Tanker and since he was having knowledge of driving, therefore, his application was recommended to the Collector (Relief), Churu and thus, he was afresh appointed alongwith other persons in famine relief work by the Collector (Relief), Churu vide order Annex. 2 dated 15. 4. 1981 purely on adhoc basis and he was posted on famine water tanker no. RJ-1-1316. Thus, it is very much clear that the respondent no. 1 was engaged under famine relief work and as soon as the famine relief work came to an end, his services were rightly terminated with effect from 24. 9. 1981. It was further submitted by the petitioners that the provisions of the Act of 1947 do not apply to the case of the respondent no. 1 as he was engaged for doing the famine relief works. Hence, it was prayed that the claim of the respondent no. 1 be rejected. After considering the entire material available on record and hearing both the parties, the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner (respondent no. 2) through impugned judgment and award dated 1. 4. 1997 came to the conclusion that the termination of services of the respondent no. 1 Richpal Singh with effect from 24. 9. 1981 by the petitioners was invalid and bad in law and thus, ordered reinstatement of the respondent no. 1 with all consequential benefits and awarded Rs. 3000/- as compensation, holding inter-alia:- (i) That the case of the present petitioners that the respondent no. 1 had worked in their employment under famine relief operation was not found established. (ii) That provisions of the Act of 1947 were applicable to the case of the respondent no. 1. (iii) That the termination of services of the respondent no. 1 by the petitioners amounted to retrenchment. (iv) That before terminating the services of the respondent no. 1, the provisions of the Act of 1947 were not complied with by the petitioners and thus, since the services of the respondent no. 1 were terminated with effect from 24. 9. 1981 in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947, therefore, the respondent no. 1 is entitled to reinstatement. Aggrieved from the said judgment and award dated 1. 4. 1997 passed by the respondent no. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. In this writ petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners:- (i) That the finding of the respondent no. 2 learned Labour Court that the respondent no. 1 was not engaged for famine relief works is per se illegal as from his appointment orders Annex. 1 dated 24. 3. 1979 and Annex. 2 dated 15. 4. 1981, the fact that he was appointed under famine relief works is well established. (ii) That in case of workers engaged for famine relief works, the provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable and their case is governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption From Labour Laws) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1964") and Section 3 of the Act or 1964 provides that labour laws do not apply in the case of famine relief works. Hence, the findings of the learned Labour Court that the provisions of the Act of 1947 are applicable to the present case are wholly erroneous and illegal one. (iii) That the respondent no. 1 had concealed the material fact and during the proceedings, he filed an application under section 33c (2) of the Act of 1947 before the respondent no. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner and a reply to that application was filed by the petitioners through Annex. 6 and in that reply, it was stated by the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 was serving in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation") since 1989 and that fact is very well established from the letter of the Corporation dated 28. 8. 1998 (Annex. 7) and thus, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondent no. 1. Thus, from this point of view also, the respondent no. 1 is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement. Hence, it was prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 1. 4. 1997 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner (respondent no. 2) be quashed and set aside. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent no. 1 in which he has supported the impugned judgment and award dated 1. 4. 1997 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner (respondent no. 2 ). THE fact as alleged by the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 was serving in the Corporation since 1989 has been admitted by him, but his case is that he was engaged there for a very short period. Apart from this, it has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the scope of interference by the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India with the findings of the learned Labour Court is very limited one and since the findings of the learned Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence and material available on record, therefore, no interference is called for with the same. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed.

(3.) THEREAFTER, through order Annex. 2 dated 15. 4. 1981 passed by the Collector (Relief), Churu, the respondent no. 1 was again appointed on the post of Driver and in that order Annex. 2, it was also clearly mentioned that because of famine, the duty of the respondent no. 1 would be to take water through tanker.