Jaishree Thakur, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 7.4.2015.
(2.) The appellant herein was appointed as Computer Data Entry Operator on 26.4.1999 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.3000/- for a period of 180 days. Thereafter by an order dated 21.10.1999, the services of the appellant were further extended for a period of six months and again extended on 19.4.2000. He continued in service for a period of more than five years and thereafter his services discontinued. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2004 removing him from service, raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate authority. Vide Notification dated 15.9.2005, the appropriate authority referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Jodhpur. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal wherein the workman challenged his removal on the grounds that his services had been terminated without any valid reason and that there was noncompliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). It was contended that no notice nor any compensation as required under Chapter V of the Act of 1947 was paid.
(3.) A detailed reply was filed to the claim petition wherein it was stated that the workman was appointed on the basis of the Computer Data Entry Operator on contract basis. Since the services were no longer required, the services of the workman were terminated vide order dated 31.3.2004 and that the order of termination was sent by the peon to be served upon the appellant along with the letter No. 3207 dated 31.3.2004 enclosing the demand draft No. 014443 of Rs.13,500/-(being honorarium for the month in lieu of notice and compensation payable under Section 25F of the Act of 1947) at the residential house of the workman on 31.3.2004. Since the appellant was not available at his residential house, the same was offered to his mother who refused to accept the same. Thereafter, it was sent by speed post on 1.4.2004 at the residential address of the workman but the same was returned with the remark that the addressee is not available in the house. Despite repeated visits on 2.4.2004, 4.4.2004, 5.4.2004 and 6.4.2004, the letter and Demand Draft remained unserved. It was again sent by Registered Post(AD) to the workman which was received back unserved on 17.4.2004. It was contended that there was sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act.;