Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant- State questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge.
(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the appellant would suffice: The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was appointed on 1-1-1978 as work-charged employee on temporary basis. Subsequently, she was declared quasi-permanent in service and worked up to 30-5-1983. Appellant terminated her service after paying one months salary in terms of Rule 26 of Rajasthan Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water-Works and Ayurvedic Departments, Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (in short the Rules). After about eight years dispute was raised by the respondent-workman. Initially no reference was made by the State Government. Subsequently, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan, under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). The reference was to the effect as to whether the employer was justified in retrenching the respondent. Several points were urged by the present appellant questioning legality of the reference. Primary stand related to the closure of the section of the Irrigation Department where the respondent was working. It was emphasized that the reference was sought for after a very long period of time i.e. about eight years. On both counts, it was submitted, that reference has to be answered against the workman and in favour of the employer. The Labour Court was of the view that though the claim was delayed, and so was the reference, yet the respondent-workman was not to be denied the benefits. It was held that Rule 26 of the Rules was similar in terms to Section 25F(a) of the Act. Even if the said provision of the Act is complied with, there was no compliance with the requirement of Section 25F(b), therefore, the reference was held maintainable and direction for payment of 30% back wages was given, along with direction for reinstatement.
(3.) Questioning correctness of the award a writ petition was filed before the High Court. Learned single Judge dismissed the same holding that merely because the claim was raised after about eight years, that did not disentitle the workman to get relief and the Labour Court was justified in awarding only 30% back wages. The orders of the Labour Court and the learned single Judge were questioned by filing appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned order the same was dismissed.;