Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has instituted the instant writ application feeling aggrieved of the award dated 9th August, 2011, passed by the Labour Court -II, Jaipur, to the extent of grant of relief of compensation in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other consequential benefits.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised needs to be first noticed. The petitioner -workman assailed the action of the respondent -employer in terminating his employment contrary to the mandate of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), for he had completed more than of 240 days of continuous service in preceding calender year to his retrenchment w.e.f. 1st December, 1994 to 28th February, 1996. The services of the petitioner -workman were terminated on 29th February, 1996, by a verbal order. The petitioner -workman raised an industrial dispute after a delay of 9 years. Consequent upon a failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer; the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act of 1947, made a reference to the Labour Court -II, Jaipur, for adjudication. On a consideration of the pleaded facts of the statement of claim, it's response by the State/employers, evidence adduced and materials available on record as well as having heard the representations of the contesting parties, the Labour Court -II, Jaipur, recorded a finding in affirmative in favour of the petitioner -workman for he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calender year with the respondent -employer. Since the termination of employment was effected without any notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation, the action was found in violation of the mandate of Section 25 -F of the Act of 1947. However, while considering the issue of grant of relief for the petitioner -workman raised the industrial dispute after an inordinate, undue and unexplained delay of 9 years; compensation of an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rs. Two lacs) awarded was considered to be the proper relief in lieu of reinstatement.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -workman, Mr. Dharmendra Jain, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application emphasized that once the retrenchment was found to be illegal and invalid for violation of mandate of Section 25 -F of the Act of 1947; the Labour Court was not justified in molding the relief for compensation in lieu of reinstatement.;