NAVODAYA VIDHYALAYA Vs. OM PRAKASH
LAWS(RAJ)-2011-9-76
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 16,2011

Navodaya Vidhyalaya Appellant
VERSUS
OM PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

GOVIND MATHUR, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ validity, correctness and propriety of the Award dated 30.5.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur is questioned.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that the appropriate government vide notification dated 20.3.2008 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that: "Whether the action of the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya in terminating the. services of their workman Shri Om Prakash w.e.f. 9.5.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to -
(3.) AFTER receiving the reference, a notice was issued by the Labour Court to the employer as well as the workman. In pursuant thereto, the workman submitted his statement of claim stating therein that he was employed with Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Tilvasni, District Jodhpur in the year 1991 as Chokidar, however, after completion of one year he was terminated from service. He was again employed as Driver/ Electrician on 1.4.2001, but terminated on 1.2.2002. Appointment was again accorded to him as Driver/ Electrician on 1.7.2004, but w.e.f. 9.5.2005 he was again terminated from service, without any just reason. As per the workman, he was in continuous service of the employer and his termination from service is nothing but retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The retrenchment was affected without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 25 -G and also without adhering to the condition precedents given under Section 25 -F of the Act of 1947. In return, the employer came with the case that on 9.5.2005 the workman left the service at his own and did not choose to return to duties on the next day. A notice on 12.5.2005 was given, but of no consequence. It was asserted that the workman abandoned the service, therefore, no need was there to follow the procedure prescribed for retrenching an employee as given under Section 25 -G of the Act of 1947 and also to adhere the condition precedents prescribed under Section 25 -F of the Act of 1947.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.