P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -employer has assailed the impugned award dt. 9th May, 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the instant writ petition. The learned Labour Court, by the award under challenge, has answered the reference in favour of respondent -workman and against the petitioner by holding that termination of the workman w.e.f., 01.01.1991 is illegal and void and as such he is liable to be reinstated in the services of the petitioner with continuity of services and 25% back wages from the date of reference till his reinstatement. The factual matrix, giving rise to this writ petition, is that the second respondent -workman was appointed as Peon by the petitioner -Bank on 12.03.1987 and continued to serve the Bank in the said capacity for more than three years. On 01.01.1991 services of the respondent -workman were dispensed with.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved from this action of the petitioner -employer, the respondent -workman raised an industrial dispute, inter alia, on the ground that his services have been terminated in gross violation of Sections 25 -F & G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1947'). The Conciliation Officer, while entertaining the dispute of the second respondent, summoned the petitioner for making efforts to settle the matter amicably. The conciliation proceedings undertaken by the Conciliation Officer ultimately failed and thereupon a failure report was sent to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government thereafter taking into account the existence of an industrial dispute between the rival parties referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. Before the learned Labour Court, the respondent submitted his statement of claim and ventilated his grievances against the alleged illegal action of the petitioner -employer. In the statement of claim, it was, inter alia, pleaded by the respondent that he was employed by the petitioner -Bank as Peon on 12.03.1987 and he has served various branches of the Bank in this capacity without interruption upto 31.12.1990. It is also averred in the statement of claim that at the threshold, the respondent was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 12/ -, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 14/ - and the requisite amount was paid to him by the end of the month. Asserting that during his entire service tenure, he has discharged his duties with sincerity and diligence the respondent has also submitted, in the statement of claim, that his attendance was also recorded in the attendance register. Voicing his grievance against his illegal termination, the second respondent has alleged in the statement of claim that his services were terminated abruptly without any notice/pay in lieu of notice and without offering him retrenchment compensation. The respondent has also alleged violation of Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 in his statement of claim.
(3.) THE statement of claim was replied by the petitioner. In the reply, a specific plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner that under the petitioner -Bank appointing authority for peon is Managing Director and there is a prescribed procedure for such recruitment. While responding to the averments contained in the statement of claim, the petitioner has asserted in the reply that in case of respondent -workman, the prescribed procedure for recruitment was not adhered to and even the so called appointment was not accorded by the competent authority, and therefore, the same is dehors the rules. With this plea, the petitioner has asserted that the respondent -workman is not entitled for any relief. While joining the issue with the respondent -workman, the petitioner has also refuted the averment that the workman remained in continuous employment for three years. As per the version of the petitioner -Bank, the respondent has not worked for 240 days in any calender year. On the strength of the aforesaid pleas, the Bank has resisted the claim of the respondent and prayed for answering reference in its favour.;