Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a Government Company indulged in the construction of bridge, highway and building; projects a challenge to the award dated 14th September, 2010, made by the Labour Court -First, Jaipur, wherein answering the reference made by the appropriate government, the Labour Court made an award with a direction for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, however, the back wages have been allowed only to the extent of 30%.
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised needs to be first noticed. It is pleaded case of the respondent/workman (Rajkumar Sharma) that he continuously worked with effect from 12th February, 1986 to 4th January, 1995 and his employment was terminated without any reason in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, 25G, 25H and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947', for short) and Rules made thereunder. The Government of Rajasthan made a reference on 14th June, 1996 to the Labour Court for adjudication on the termination of the employment of the respondent/workman vide order dated 4th January, 1995. The Labour Court taking into consideration the pleaded facts in the statement of claim, reply to the statement of claim submitted on behalf of the petitioner as well as in view of evidence and materials brought on record, concluded the termination of the employment of the respondent/workman as illegal and invalid and in consequence thereof, made an award with a direction for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, however, the back wages were restricted to the extent of 30%. Learned counsel for petitioner Corporation reiterating pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application and the stand in the reply to the statement of claim before the Labour Court, assailed the award as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the materials available on record as well as contrary to the pleadings of the parties. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent/workman was not appointed to any post in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules. Further, the respondent/workman was not within the ambit of the definition of 'workman', as defined under the Act of 1947. The Labour Court committed a serious error of law in ignoring the provisions of Section 25FF(2) of the Act of 1947, it is further urged. Moreover, the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the relevant materials i.e. document (Ex.M4), which conclusively proved the fact that notice pay and compensation was paid through cheque and the same was received by the counsel for the respondent/workman on 20th January, 1995. Referring to the cross -examination of the respondent/workman, the learned counsel argued that the respondent/workman admitted the fact of an effort made by the petitioner Corporation to make payment of Rs. 5,100/ -(Rupees : Five Thousand One Hundred Only) through cheque, however, the cheque did not reach him as the same was sent by post to his old residential address. The respondent/workman further admitted the fact that he did not inform the petitioner Corporation of his new residential address. The learned counsel stressed that the petitioner Corporation is involved in the work of construction and as soon as a particular project comes to an end, the requirement of engagement of the workmen on the project also comes to an end and in such circumstances, the termination of the employment of the respondent/workman cannot be faulted.
(3.) IN the alternative, the learned counsel would submit that in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case at hand, compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, would have been the proper and fair relief to the respondent/workman. Reliance is placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors.: : (2010) 6 SCC 773 and also on the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vikash Adhikari & Anr. v. Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr.: : 2007 (1) WLC 474.;