SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Central Arid Zone Research Institute through the Director (CAZRI), Jodhpur has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 10. 3. 97 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No. 53/94 in favour of the respondent workman whereby it was held that the termination of the respondent workman on 1. 12. 85 was illegal and the petitioner was directed to take back the workman in service forthwith and to grant 50% back wages from the date of reference i. e. 4. 6. 94 till he was reinstated in service.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Chhangani submitted that the State Government was not competent in making reference to the competent Labour Court because the respondent workman was an employee of the petitioner institution which is an integral part of Indian Council for Agriculture Research which is controlled by Union of India. He submitted that in almost identical case of the sistern concern of the petitioner i. e. Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, R. C. P Colony, Bikaner, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.) allowed the writ petition no. 2735/90 (1) and set aside the award passed in favour of the workman by holding that the State Government was not competent to make the reference when the petitioner institute was funded by the Union of India. In all fairness to Mr. Chhangani, it must be stated that he himself pointed out that this very judgment has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. However, learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the respondent workman raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on this ground. He submitted that this objection was never raised before the Conciliation Officer, therefore, the State Government had made the reference. He submitted that the respondent is a poor workman who was employed on daily wages basis in the institution way back on 2. 1. 1982 and his services were terminated unceremoniously with effect from 1. 12. 1985 that too by an oral order. He further submitted that it was so difficult for him to maintain himself and even to approach the competent government after he was out of the job. It took almost nine years for the workman to approach the State Government who in turn made the reference only on 4. 6. 1994. He also submitted that this point was never argued before the learned Labour Judge who passed the award on 10. 3. 1997, therefore, it will not be open to the petitioner to raise this point for the first time before this Court. He submitted that this requires evidence and in absence of that, it will not be proper for this Court to allow the petitioner to raise this point for the first time before this Court. However, learned counsel Mr. Chhangani submitted that this point was specifically raised by the petitioner institution in the reply filed by it before the Labour Court, therefore, he cannot be prevented from raising this point for the first time before this Court, particularly when almost identical petition filed by its sister concern has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Mr. Chhangani has placed before me the judgment dated 12. 5. 99 of the learned Single Judge in writ petition no. 2735/90. From the photostat copy of the judgment, it is clear that in that case, a specific plea was raised before the Labour Court about the maintainability of the reference on this ground mainly that the State Government could not have made the reference. However, from the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that no such contention was ever pressed into service before the Labour Court at the time of hearing of the matter. Merely, raising contention in the reply is not sufficient. It has to be pressed into service and argued. It happens that number of points are taken in the reply or the petition but at times only few points are pressed into service before the Court and the Presiding Officer has to decide only those points which have been argued before him and not others which are merely taken in the reply or petition. In the instant case, the poor workman continuously worked from January, 1982 to November, 1985 for almost four years. His services were terminated without following the provisions of law. If on this ground, the Labour Court has declared his termination illegal and ordered reinstatement, then such a technical ground should not come in the way of the workman in seeking reinstatement. I failed to understand what difference would be there if either the State Government makes the reference or the Central Government. When full opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead the evidence before the Labour Court and thereafter the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent workman was in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, then in my considered opinion, it does not lie good in the mouth of the petitioner to come up before this Court with such technical plea and that too for the first time in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
(3.) WHILE passing the impugned award what has been done by the Labour Court? It has only ordered the reinstatement of the respondent workman in service by giving only 50% back wages and that too not from the date of termination i. e. 7. 12. 85 but only from the date of the reference i. e. 4. 6. 94. Thus, therefore, when substantial justice is done by the Labour Court, then this Court would not interfere with such orders in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. It must be stated that in the case of the very petitioner, the learned Single Judge of this court (Shri J. C. Verma, J.) decided this very point against the petitioner on 13. 5. 97. (See Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur vs. Arid Zone Employees Union and another Against this judgment of my learned brother Shri Verma, J. , the matter was carried in special appeal which was dismissed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court too has dismissed the S. L. P. There is a controversy between the learned counsel Mr. Chhangani for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta for the respondent regarding the dismissal of the special appeal on the ground of limitation or on merits. I would not like to go into that. It is suffice to state that whatever grounds were there, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench in special appeal and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. L. P. Much has been said by the learned counsel Mr. Chhangani about the judgment of my learned brother (Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.) in case of Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute which is the sister concern of the petitioner wherein my learned brother took the view that the Central Government is only the competent government and not the State Government. It may be stated that the said matter was decided by my learned brother on 12. 5. 1999 after my learned brother Shri Verma, J. decided the petition filed by the present petitioner on 30. 5. 97. It was the duty on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner's sistern concern to point out this judgment to the learned Single Judge of this Court. In fact, it was not done so. If the judgment of my learned brother Shri J. C. Verma, J. was pointed out to my learned brother Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. then perhaps my learned brother Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. would not have taken this view. Be that as it may. ;