- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) SINCE, these special appeals are directed against common order of Single Bench dated 03.01.2012, therefore, the same are being disposed off by this common judgment. Briefly stated, the facts of these Special Appeals are that fourteen workmen, namely Ganesh, Richpal Singh, Vijay Singh Shekhawat, Ashok Kumar Vyas, Sunder Lal, Vinod Kumar, Shankar Lal Sharma, Ramswaroop, Suresh Saini, Rameshwar Prasad, Girdhari Lal, Prithvi Singh, Narender Singh and Devi Sahai, filed their statements of claim before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur(for short 'the Tribunal'). Reference of 6 workmen, namely Ganesh, Richpal Singh, Vijay Singh, Ashok Kumar Vyas, Girdhari Lal and Prithvi Singh, were decided by a common Award dated 23.08.2011. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that there is violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') in the cases of four workmen Ganesh, Richpal Singh, Vijay Singh and Ashok Kumar, however, instead of passing order of their reinstatement in service with back wages, the Tribunal passed an order of lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- in each case, to be paid to the workmen by the Management. So far as workmen Girdhari and Prithvi Singh are concerned, the Tribunal recorded a finding that there is no violation of any provision of the Act including Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, therefore, their reference applications were decided against them. Similarly, the Tribunal by a separate common Award dated 23.08.2011, disposed off the reference applications of 8 workmen. The Tribunal recorded a finding in favour of 6 workmen, namely Shankar Lal, Vinod Kumar, Sunder Lal, Ramswaroop, Suresh and Rameshwar to the effect that there is violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and consequently, awarded a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- each, in place of their reinstatement in service with back wages. So far as workmen Narender Singh and Devi Sahai are concerned, a finding was recorded by the Tribunal that there was no violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Being aggrieved with the Awards dated 23.08.2011 passed by the Tribunal, 13 workmen, named above, except workman Ganesh, preferred separate 13 writ petitions before the Single Bench. 9 workmen preferred the writ petitions with a prayer that they should have been reinstated in service with back wages, instead of awarding lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each workman separately, whereas 4 workmen, namely Girdhari, Prithvi Singh, Narender Singh and Devi Sahai, preferred the writ petitions with a prayer that finding of Labour Court is not correct, in their cases also, there was violation of provision of Section 25-F of the Act and they should have also been reinstated in service or at least an award of lump sum amount of compensation, in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, should have been passed, as passed in other cases. Learned Single Judge heard all the cases together and by a common order dated 03.01.2012, came to a conclusion that finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. Single Bench was also satisfied that award of lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/- in each case, is also just and proper, looking to the nature of appointment and length of service, consequently, dismissed all the writ petitions, preferred on behalf of 13 workmen. Hence, these workmen have preferred the present intra Court appeals.
(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for appellants is that so far as workmen, in whose cases Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are concerned, they should have been reinstated in service with full back wages, instead of awarding lump sum amount of compensation, therefore, the learned Tribunal as well as the Single Bench, both, have committed an illegality in passing the impugned award and order. As regards 4 workmen, it is submitted by the learned counsel that they have also worked for more than 240 days in a preceding year soon before their date of termination, therefore, finding of the Tribunal to that extent, was not correct and the same should have been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the Single Bench as well as the Awards passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur and submitted that what is the total period of service of workmen, is purely a question of fact and there is a finding of fact, recorded by the Tribunal, which could not have been interferred with by the Single Bench and the same has rightly not been interferred with by it, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that there was no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by Tribunal. So far as remaining 4 workmen, whose references were decided against them, are concerned, learned counsel for respondents submitted that they had not completed 240 days in a preceding year, soon before the date of their termination. He submitted that even if they completed 240 days earlier, but not in preceding year, then the same could not have been treated as violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard, is absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for. ;