Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -State (for short, the employer), aggrieved of the award dated 19th September, 2001, passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): "(i) to issue writ, order or direction calling for entire record of the case and after examining the same be further pleased to quash and set aside the award dated 19.9.2001 passed in L.C.R. No. 117/1997; (ii) to issue writ, order or direction to declare that the workman in not entitle to be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 25 -F of I.D. Act, 1947. (iii) to issue writ, order or direction to declare that the workman is not entitled in any manner to be given the benefit of reinstatement with continuity and for payment of wages from the date of passing of the award. (iv) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favor of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award needs to be first noticed. The respondent -workman - Bhagwan Das, raised an industrial dispute stating that he was engaged as Beldar by the petitioner -employer on 1st July, 1981, and continuously worked upto 31st December, 1993, while his services were terminated without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation. As a consequence of failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the State of Rajasthan made a reference vide notification dated 1st May, 1997 in exercise of powers under Section 10 read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). The Labour Court taking into consideration the pleadings of the statement of claim, response filed on behalf of the employer, evidence adduced by the parties and material available on record, passed the impugned award in affirmative and favor of the respondent -workman, holding the termination of employment of the petitioner on 31st December, 1993, as illegal and invalid. The Labour Court vide the impugned award directed reinstatement of the respondent -workman with continuity of service but without any back -wages. In case, the employer failed to comply with the award within three months from the date of the award; in that event, the respondent -workman would be entitled to full back -wages and all consequential benefits with effect from the date of the award. Learned counsel for the petitioner -State, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts, evidence and material available on record. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent -workman himself abandoned the services on his own and did not report for duty. After an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 4 -5 years, the respondent -workman raised an industrial dispute. Furthermore, the respondent -workman failed to prove the facts pleaded in the statement of claim for any cogent and convincing evidence brought on record, and therefore, the impugned award is bad in the eye of law on that count as well.
(3.) IT is further emphasized that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent -workman had completed 240 days of employment in the preceding calender year, is based on no evidence. Moreover, the respondent -workman himself abandoned the services. Referring to the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Raghuvar and Anr; : 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 501, it was stressed that the respondent -workman, as a daily wager worked for a short period and did not raise any grievance with reference to his alleged termination of employment for almost 4 -5 years, and therefore, the statement of claim ought to have been dismissed on that count alone.;