Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Rajasthan Housing Board has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the award Annexure -12 dated 27.12.2007 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur in Labour Case No. 152/2006 whereby the reference instituted at the instance of the respondent workman Mahendra Singh Bhati was accepted and holding his removal from service to be illegal retrenchment, he was directed to be reinstated in service without back wages.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman was employed as a computer operator by the petitioner on a fixed term on purely contractual basis. There is no carded post of Computer Operator in the Housing Board at Jodhpur. Assailing the legality and validity of the award, counsel for the petitioner contends that though the respondent was engaged as a contractual employee and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were even not applicable to his case but despite that the petitioner Board, by way of abundant caution, before terminating him from service, complied with all the mandatory requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that the respondent workman came to the Board's office on 31.3.2004 and left immediately after submitting a leave application. On the very same day, the termination order Annexure P -4 accompanied with a compensation draft was forwarded by hand to the residence of the respondent workman with a peon after entering the same in the Peon Book. Learned counsel submits that the respondent was not found available at his residence upon which the peon attempted to offer the termination order and the demand draft to the mother of the respondent but she had been briefed in advance and refused to accept the documents. Thereafter the termination letter as well as the compensation draft were transmitted to the residence of the respondent workman through speed post on 1.4.2004. The envelope was carried by the postman to the residence of the respondent on 1.4.2004, 2.4.2004, 5.4.2004 and 6.4.2004 and on each date, it was returned back with the note that recipient was not found available at the address. Ultimately the envelope was sent back to the petitioner Board on 8.4.2004. Thereupon the Board again sent the documents through registered A.D. post on 8.4.2004 at the address of the respondent workman but the said envelope was also returned back with the endorsement that the addressee was not found available despite four attempts. Finally the petitioner Board was constrained to effect service of the termination order through publication in a news paper on 17.5.2004. He submits that the workman, in his testimony before the Tribunal admitted that he was aware of the termination proceedings even before the documents Annexure -4 and Annexure -5 were prepared and thus as per him, the workman deliberately avoided to accept the termination order as well as the compensation draft. He thus urged that adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the workman. Learned counsel further referred to the evidence of L.R.Bishnoi, the representative of the petitioner Board who was examined before the Tribunal and urged that the witness clearly stated that the termination letter as well as the compensation draft was sent to the residence of the workman but he deliberately refused to accept the same. Learned counsel submitted that no cross examination was conducted from the witness on this aspect of his evidence, and therefore, the plea taken by the Board before the Tribunal that full compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was made before removing the respondent workman from service ought to have been accepted.
(3.) LEARNED counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in : AIR 1993 SC -1388 and submits that the only requirement of law is that the compensation should be tendered to the workman before effecting his termination and that would be a sufficient compliance of the mandate of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submits that the respondent was reinstated in service pursuant to the award because the stay application preferred by the Board in the instant writ petition was dismissed. However, he contends that the reinstatement was directed making it subject to final out come of the instant writ petition. He vehemently urged that the impugned award is grossly illegal and the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the award Annexure -12 should be quashed.;