- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THIS intra-court appeal on behalf of workman, is directed against the impugned order of Single Bench dated 8th December, 2011, whereby writ petition filed by Management/employer against award of Labour Court, Jaipur reinstating the workman/appellant was disposed off by modifying the award that instead of reinstatement of workman with back wages, he be paid compensation, which was quantified as Rs.75,000/-. The appellant/workman, as per his statement of claim, filed before Labour Court, Jaipur, was appointed as Helper on 18.6.1984 on daily wages at the rate of Rs.9/- per day. His services were retrenched on 14th April, 1986. It was averred that neither any order of retrenchment was given nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and he was not allowed to work on and after 14.4.1986. It was averred that there is violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), therefore, his termination from service be declared as unreasonable and illegal and non-applicant/employer be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service. The matter was contested by employer by filing written reply, wherein averments made in the statement of claim were not admitted and it was pleaded that applicant was casual employee. He was engaged on daily wage as and when there was casual work. The applicant was not retrenched. The parties led their evidence. Learned Labour Court vide its award dated 10th August, 1998 held that termination of workman Jagdish Narain was not valid and reasonable. Therefore, he be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. The respondent No.1/employer challenged the aforesaid award before Single Bench by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4640/1999, which was disposed off vide order dated 8th December, 2011. Learned Single Judge held that an award of reinstatement with back wages cannot be held to be legal, but he is entitled to receive compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, which was quantified as Rs.75,000/-. Being aggrieved with the order of Single Bench, the workman has preferred this intra-court appeal.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant continuously worked for about 1 year and 10 months and Labour Court recorded a finding that there is violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, reinstatement of workman was automatic and learned Single Judge has committed an illegality in interferring with the award passed by Labour Court. He, therefore, submitted that order of Single Bench be set aside. In support of his submission, he referred the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 26th March, 2012 in Aaram Saini Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jaipur and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.87/2003, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur ((2011) 6 SCC 584). We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned order as well as award passed by Labour Court and other documents available on record. As per averments made in statement of claim filed by appellant, he was appointed on the post of Helper on daily wages at the rate of Rs.9/- per day on 18.6.1984. His services were terminated or he was not allowed to work w.e.f. 14.4.1986. He, therefore, worked for about 1 year and 10 months. The finding of the Labour Court in this regard was not challenged by employer before Single Bench and their only challenge was with regard to the relief of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court to the workman. Learned Single Judge after considering the number of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court including the judgment of Apex Court delivered in Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur (supra) came to a conclusion that in the background of the present case an award of reinstatement with back wages is not legal and in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, the employee is entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/- in the present matter keeping in mind the status of the employee and the period of service and the fact that employee was getting benefit of Section 17-B of the Act during the intervening period. ;