- (1.) BY the judgment dated 23.09.2004, the learned Single Bench dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3367/2004 giving challenge by the employer to the award dated 31.10.2002 passed by the labour court, Jodhpur.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that the appropriate government under the notification dated 20.04.1999 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication in following terms: - "Whether raising of industrial dispute after a lapse of 10 years by the workman Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Mishri Lal through Shri Vijay Mehta, Executive Member, Raj. Trade Union Congress, Jodhpur is justified? If yes, then whether the employer, Principal Investigator & Coordinator (Solar Energy), Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur is justified in terminating the workman from service with effect from 01.01.1986. If not then for what relief and amount the workman is entitled - The learned labour court after examining the entire material available on record answered the reference by the award dated 31.10.2002 holding therein that the delay caused in raising the industrial dispute was justifiable and the termination of the workman from service with effect from 01.01.1986 was not justified. The labour court declared the workman entitled for reinstatement in service without back wages. The petition for writ giving challenge to the award dated 31.10.2002 filed by the employer came to be dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide the judgment impugned.
(3.) IN appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant -employer is that the labour court as well as the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that no reason was available to the workman to raise the industrial dispute after lapse of more than 10 years. While defending termination of workman from service, it is stated that the workman left the services at his own, therefore, no need was there to adhere the mandatory conditions precedent as provided in para -V of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act of 1947'). It is also urged that even as per the workman he worked for a period of 258 days only, therefore, instead of giving the relief of reinstatement, he would have been compensated by way of awarding a lump sum amount.;