RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan in this writ petition has challenged the award dated 16. 04. 2002 whereby the learned Labour Court Jodhpur while answering a reference on an industrial dispute declared the removal of respondent-workman, who was working on daily wages in the office of Assistant Engineer, Drilling & Hand-pump Sub-Division-I, PHED-Nagaur from service on 1. 10. 1984 as illegal and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent-workman and treat his services to be continuous and pay 25% back wages from the date of reference till reinstatement.
(2.) THE case of the respondent-workman before the learned Labour Court was that he was appointed as a labour on monthly wages of Rs. 270/- by the Assistant Engineer, Drilling & Hand-pump Sub-Division-I, PHED Nagaur on 21. 12. 1982. He thereafter continuously worked with them up to 30. 9. 1984. Suddenly his services were terminated on 1. 10. 1984 without showing any reason and without giving any charge-sheet. THE respondent-workman had completed more than 240 days in the employment of management. THE management did not comply with the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while removing him from service. Neither did they give him any notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of removal. Several new employees were engaged after his removal and several other workmen who were junior to him were continued in service. THE management did not prepare any seniority list as required by Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Control) Rules and did not follow the principles of first come first go at the time of his removal. It was therefore prayed that removal of the respondent-workman be declared illegal and being violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and he should be held entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. That the appellant contested the matter before the learned Labour Court and filed a reply to the statement of claim of the respondent-workman. It was denied that the respondent workman was engaged on monthly wages of Rs. 270/ -. He was engaged by verbal order on 21. 12. 1982 @ Rs. 8/- per day for managing articles in store. He worked with the management up to 30. 9. 1984 except on holidays and, therefore it was denied that he continuously worked from 21. 12. 1982 to 30. 9. 1984. When the work in store was completed the workman was informed in writing on 31. 8. 1984 that if he agreed, he could be engaged for running the machine in mechanical section but again on contract basis. When the petitioner did not accept that offer, he could not have been continued in service as his earlier appointment on contract basis had come to an end and he was informed accordingly. It was submitted that respondents did not fall within the definition of workman as he was engaged on contract basis and with the completion of work his appointment came to an end. There was thus no industrial dispute. It was therefore prayed that the claim of the respondent-workman may be rejected. That while workman filed his own affidavit in support of his case, one T. D. Solanki, Assistant Engineer filed his affidavit in support of the case of management. They were allowed to be cross-examined. The workman filed only one certificate dated 21. 12. 1982 which was Exhibit-1. The learned Labour Court examined the entire record and heard the arguments and finally answered the reference in the terms indicated above. Against this award of the learned Labour Court the State of Rajasthan has filed the present writ petition. I have heard the arguments of Shri Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State and Shri Jagdish Gehlot, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record of the case.
(3.) SHRI Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that respondent workman was engaged on contract basis for management of articles in store and with the completion of that work, his services became liable to be discontinued. He at that time was asked to give in writing his consent for doing the work of machine but he failed to give his consent. He was informed in writing on 31. 8. 1984 that the work in the store had been completed, therefore, his services were no more required. Once when the work for which the respondent-workman was engaged was completed, he could not have been continued in service particularly when his appointment was made on contract basis. SHRI Dave has also argued that those appointed on contract basis do not fall within the definition of workman and discontinuation of service of a workman is engaged on contract basis as a result of completion of work would not fall within the definition of retrenchment. Such categories of workman were covered under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act who were excluded from purview of retrenchment. The management did not violate any of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules. The petitioners have also not violated the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, the workman has not given any datas or details and not furnished any names to substantiate his allegation of non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-G and H. SHRI Dave has argued that even if the case of the respondent-workman was accepted, though denied, he having been engaged on daily wages basis on 21. 12. 1982 and worked with the petitioners only up to 30. 9. 1984, this period hardly comes to one year and nine months, he was not entitled to reinstatement. In the facts of the present case, the learned Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement of the respondent particularly when the work for which he was engaged had been completed. A long period of almost 18 years had gone by since the time of removal of the respondent when the award was passed by learned Labour Court. He has argued that this delay in passing of the award was solely attributable to the workmen because the reference on industrial dispute in the present case at his instance was made by the appropriate Government as late as 23. 9. 1997. The learned Dy. Government Advocate has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Arjun Singh & 4 Ors. vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur & ors. reported in 2004 (4)WLC (Raj.) 145 and another Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rashid Mohammed reported in 2004 (5) WLC (Raj.) 463. On the other hand, Shri Jagdish Gehlot appearing for the respondent-workman has argued that the respondent was not appointed on daily wage basis and that his appointment was made on monthly basis. He has submitted that the management did not produce any evidence or documents to show that the appointment of the respondent-workman was made on contract basis or on daily wages basis. He has denied that the delay in making reference was attributable to the respondent and has argued that the workman has raised the dispute in the year 1993 before the Conciliation Officer who submitted the failure report in the year 1993. The learned Labour Court has rightly found that the retrenchment of the workman was made in complete violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Labour Court was thus fully justified in directing reinstatement of the respondent with 25% back wages. ;