Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE State -petitioners, in the instant writ application have assailed the legality and validity of the award passed by the Labour Court -II, Jaipur; directing the State -petitioners to reinstate the respondent -workman with 50% of back wages while holding the 'retrenchment' dated 1st February, 1995, as illegal and invalid.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the respondent -workman was initially engaged on 1st August, 1989 on daily wages basis. On an industrial dispute raised with reference to termination of employment on 31st July, 1990, the matter was settled before the Conciliation Officer on 30th April, 1991 and the respondent -workman was reinstated on 1st May 1991. The employment of the respondent -workman was again terminated on 1st February, 1995. The respondent -workman again raised an industrial dispute leading to a reference dated 23rd March, 1998, by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947'). The Labour Court -II, Jaipur, taking into consideration, the statement of claim, response filed by the petitioners/employers, evidence adduced by the parties, and upon hearing the representatives, made the impugned award as aforesaid, of which the petitioners are aggrieved of. Learned counsel for the petitioners/employers, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphasized that the impugned award is against the facts, circumstances and law. Further, the impugned award has been made contrary to the principle of natural justice for the petitioners/employers were not afforded ample opportunity to produce the relevant evidence by the Labour Court -II, Jaipur.
(3.) MOREOVER , since the respondent -workman left the job on his own violation, after he got married, he was not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court -II, Jaipur, committed gross illegality for the mandate of Section 25 -F of the Act of 1947 is not attracted in a situation where the respondent -workman himself abandoned the job. The respondent -workman is also not entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages for he was gainfully employed elsewhere during the relevant period.;