Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 workman.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridege & Construction Corporation Limited, Unit Sawaimadhopur, against Award dated 25.07.1996 of learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. A reference raising industrial dispute was made to Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the question whether action of petitioner in terminating services of respondent -workman with effect from 24.08.1987 was legal and valid and, if not, what relief was he entitled to? Learned Labour Court answered the reference in terms that removal of respondent -workman by petitioner from services was made in violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act') and, therefore, directed his reinstatement with continuity in service, but confined payment of back wages only for period from 25.08.1987 to 13.09.1988 and not thereafter up -to the date of Award. Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that respondent -workman was given offer of reinstatement, which fact he has admitted in his cross -examination but he insisted that he would work on the post of Store -Munshi whereas he was offered reemployment on the post of Helper on which he originally worked and, taking note of this fact, the Labour Court has declined to grant him back wages for the period subsequent to such offer was made. However, the learned Labour Court wrongly held that there was violation of Section 25F of the ID Act in issuing notice on 26.05.1987 to respondent - workman whereby it was conveyed that his services shall stand terminated with effect from 30.06.1987. It was sufficient compliance
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner further submitted that in so far as alleged shortage of compensation is concerned, the same was also tendered to respondent -workman by Cheque of Rs. 294.50p., dated 25.08.1987, which was sent to respondent -workman through their peon Laxmandas but respondent -workman declined to accept the Cheque and, therefore, it should be taken as sufficient compliance of Section 25F. Learned Counsel in this connection referred to statement of Shri A.P. Pandey, Assistant Engineer, who was got examined as a witness on their behalf before the Labour Court. Learned Counsel submitted that once respondent -workman has admitted that he received the amount of Rs. 917.40p., towards compensation, and did not object about correctness of computation thereof at the time when he received the same he could not sufficiently raise such objection and if there was any deficiency, the same was made good when subsequently he was offered remaining amount of Rs. 294.50p., by Cheque. Therefore, there is no case of violation of Section 25F of the ID Act. The Labour Court was wholly unjustified in holding termination of respondent -workman as illegal. The learned Counsel further submitted that respondent - workman, subsequent to the date of termination of his services on 30.06.1987, further worked with the petitioner for some more time and that was done on his own request. In any case so far violation of Section 25F of the ID Act cannot be taken as proved.;