- (1.) Rajendra Pal Kukar respondent workman in the present case was initially appointed with effect form 25.8.1981 as Junior Engineer for one month and later on vide order dated 26.10.1981 he was awarded the regular pay scale of Junior Engineer under the Rajasthan Service Rules and he continued to work in the job. There was nothing adverse against him; He was removed from service on 25.4.1985 without any cause it is so alleged by the workman. It is stated that his work had time and again been commended during this period. The workman was interviewed on 6.7.1984 and was selected for the same post and was allowed to continue and appointed vide letter dated 1.8.1984 on the post of Junior Engineer on certain conditions which the workman did not agree for the reason that the he was in continuous service from 1981 and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity to put any conditions on him by issuing a fresh appointment order. He had fallen ill and was under treatment from 5.2.1985 to 14.4.1985 in the Government Hospital for which period he had applied due leave. His services were terminated vide letter dated 16.3.1985 in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as "the Act of 1947"). It was stated by the workman that he had regularly worked without any break from 25.8.1981 to 16.3.1985 and, therefore, the termination of his services was bad. The matter was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Bikaner.
(2.) The petitioner respondent before the Labour Court had admitted that: the workman was employed on 25.8.1981 initially for one month and later on his term was extended from time to time. Regular vacancies were advertised and the workman had also applied for the same and, therefore, he was again employed for six months on probation, even though he was already in service. It was stated that on having been re-selected on 17.4.1984 the workman was employed @ Rs. 1050/- and not in scale 420-830 in the year 1981. It was further stated in the reply that the probation period was further extended for three months and this services were terminated as he was not found fit to be retained in service. A plea was taken that the services of the workman were terminated because of non-satisfactory work during the period of probation.
(3.) After going through the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties, the Labour Court vide a well reasoned judgment Annex.7 dated 24.2.1995 had come to the conclusion that the workman had worked right from 25.8.1981 till the date of termination. It had also been found that the workman was selected by way of regular selection also and even his pay was fixed by taking into account his previous service. It was found by the Labour Court that as a matter of fact, the Management wanted the workman to agree to certain other service conditions after his re-selection in the year 1984 and the workman had objected for putting certain conditions of service on him which were not in accordance with the rules and vide Ex.8 he had refused to give his consent to such conditions and asked for certain other clarifications before agreeing to such conditions put on the workman and it was also found by the Labour Court that the appointment made in the year 1984 cannot be said to be a fresh appointment because he was in continuous service right from August, 1981 and even if his previous service was counted while giving fresh appointment. It was further found by the Labour Court that the services of the workman had been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Act of 1947 which was rather an admitted fact and thus, the termination of the services of the respondent workman was held to be bad and he was ordered to be reinstated with full benefits.;