- (1.) THIS writ appeal has been preferred assailing the order passed by the Single Bench affirming the award passed by the labour court.
(2.) THE appellant Shahid worked in UIT, Udaipur for a short duration from 1.4.1988 to 31.1.1990. It was submitted that he was removed without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947 for short). He remained unemployed, thus, prayer for reinstatement is made. On behalf of the respondents, reply has been filed while contending that there was no sanctioned post. The employee has served on daily wage basis. He has left his work at his own will on 1.2.1990. No permanent vacant post was available. The provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 is not attracted. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that services were rendered for more than 240 days in a preceding year. The provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 was not complied with. The action of removing the appellant from the services tantamount to illegal retrenchment and in such case, payment of compensation is also one of the mode to provide the alternative relief in lieu of reinstatement. The learned labour court referred the decisions (i) 1995 SCC (L&S) 142 ? Rolston Johan Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & Ors., (ii) 1995 SCC (L&S) 529 ? Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman-Managing Director, United Commerce Bank & Ors, (iii) 1995 SCC (L&S) 141 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Mulu Amra, (iv) LLJ 1996 (1) 644 Gidderbaha Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr., (v) 1993 LLR 524 M/s. Eicher Good Earth Ltd. Vs. Shri Rajendra Kumar Soni & Anr. (vi) 1998 SCC (L&S) 170 Rattan Singh Vs. UOI & Anr. and (vii) 1999 (1) WLC (Raj.) 310 Dharamveer Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. and awarded the compensation of Rs.32,000/- to be paid within 3 months failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the award passed by the labour court, the employee approached this court. Single Bench of this court dismissed the writ application vide order dated 26.9.2001. Being dissatisfied by the order, this intra court appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant Sh. Sanjay Mathur has submitted that as the labour court has found that termination was illegal and reinstatement is the general rule which ought to have been resorted in the instant case in stead of order of payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Sh. Dalip Kawadia has supported the award passed by the labour court.
(3.) IN the instant case, we find that the appellant has rendered the services approximately for 2 years. He approached the tribunal for reference after about 4 years. It appears that he was not very keen to pursue his continuance in service otherwise he would not have waited for 4 years. The labour court has exercised the jurisdiction to award compensation on sound principles of law and has referred various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of appointment and the period for which the appellant had served, we find that the tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation. Hence, no case is made out so as to make any interference in the intra court appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.;