VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, initially the petitioner Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahar (Sriganganagar) challenged the award dated 06. 061994 as well as notification dated 12. 09. 1994 and it was further prayed that order dated 19. 07. 2004 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar may be quashed. Thereafter, order passed under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act by the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar was also challenged and, for that purpose, amendment was made in the writ petition and the said amendment was allowed vide order dated 14. 12. 2006. Thus, now the order impugned dated 19. 07. 2004 (Annex.-21) is also under challenge.
(2.) ACCORDING to the facts stated in the writ petition, for better implementation of the relief work programme, the State Government directed each Panchayat Samiti to engage Junior Engineers and other staff on daily-wage basis. As per the directions of the State Government, the Collector/project Director was authorized to hold interview and prepare panel at district-level and the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti could then engage the persons from amongst those named in the panel. Respondent No. 2 was selected by the District Rural Development Agency, Sriganganagar as Junior Engineer and he was sent to the Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahar for appointment on daily-wage basis under the National Rural Employment Programme (N. R. E. P. Scheme) which was promulgated by the Government. The aforesaid appointment of respondent No. 2 was made on 15. 03. 1988 by the Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahar. It is further stated that in pursuance of the directions of the Government, the Collector (Development), Sriganganagar vide order dated 13. 01. 1989 directed the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahar to terminate the services of Junior Engineer working in the NREP Scheme. By way of filing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 347/1989, the respondent No. 2 challenged the validity of the order dated 13. 01. 1989 (Annex.-5) and, therein, the operation of the order passed by the Addl. Collector (Development), Sriganganagar for terminating the services of Junior Engineers working in NREP/rlepg project was stayed by this Court. The respondent No. 2 continued on the said post till final adjudication of the said writ petition vide order dated 17. 02. 1992. As per the petitioner, the order passed by the Addl. Collector (Development), Sriganganagar for terminating the services of the Junior Engineers working in the project was maintained by this Court, therefore, vide order dated 24. 02. 1992 respondent's services were brought to an end. Against said termination of services, an industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 2 before the Conciliation Officer and, upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was sent to the appropriate Government and vide notification dated 24. 02. 1994, the following dispute was referred to the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner for adjudication : D;k Jh cyfoun flag iq= thrflag Dfu"b vfhk;urk Dks fu;kstD foDkl vf/kDkjh iapk;r lfefr lknqy'kgj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj }kjk fnukaD 24-2-92 Dks lsok ls gvk;k tkuk mfpr ,oa os| gs ;fn ugha rks JfeD fDl jkgr ,oa jkf'k Dks ikus Dk vf/kDkjh gs\** The responDent workman was calleD upon to file his claim before the JuDge, Labour Court. The workman submitteD that his services were terminateD on 24. 02. 1992 in violation of provisions of Section 25f, 25g anD 25h of the InDustrial Disputes Act. Notices were issueD to the petitioner Vikas ADhikari, Panchayat Samiti, SaDulshahar anD the same were serveD in the office of the Panchayat Samiti. However, noboDy appeareD before the Labour Court on 12. 05. 1994, the Date on which the employer non- claimant's appearance was requireD. Upon non-appearance of the employer non-claimant, the Judge Labour Court, Bikaner passed order ex parte and granted opportunity to the workman to produce his evidence in support of the claim. The respondent workman filed his affidavit alongwith other documents. After hearing the arguments of the workman, vide award dated 6th June, 1994, the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner reached conclusion that services of the respondent workman was dispensed with in violation of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the respondent No. 2 and order dated 24. 02. 1992 was set aside by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner and order was passed for reinstatement of the workman respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service. However, the workman was held not entitled to receive salary for the period from 25. 02. 1992 upto 30. 11. 1993 and order was made for payment of salary with effect from 01. 12. 1993. The award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner was notified and published in the official gazette.
(3.) THEREAFTER, by way of filing the present writ petition, petitioner Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahar challenged the award. The writ petition was filed after lapse of nearabout 2 years on 20. 02. 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that appointment of respondent No. 2 was made in a particular project and upon directions of the State Government his services were ordered to be terminated by the Addl. Collector (Development), Sriganganagar vide telegraphic order dated 13. 01. 1989 which runs as under: *** The said order was stayed by this Court and, thereafter, after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2, his services were terminated vide order dated 24. 02. 1992. According to the petitioner, at the time of termination of the respondent's services compliance of Section 25f was made and retrenchment was made in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned award is erroneous and order of termination was wrongly set aside by the Judge, Labour Court on the ground that Section 25f was violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that respondent No. 2 was given appointment in a particular project and later on his services was terminated as per direction of the State Government. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent workman, order dated 24. 02. 1992 terminating the services of the workman was passed after compliance with the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, there was no illegality in the order but the learned Judge, Labour Court erroneously arrived at the finding that termination of services of the respondent workman was illegal. it is further contended that the award was passed ex parte, however, the learned Judge, Labour Court was under obligation to pass the award in accordance with law whereas the Labour Court has failed to consider important aspect of the matter that the workman was provided appointment in a particular scheme and, after completion of the scheme, the services of the respondent workman was rightly terminated and, furthermore, while passing the order dated 24. 02. 1992 the petitioner fully complied with the provisions of Section 25f of the Act. ;