Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by State of Rajasthan assailing ex -parte award passed by Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur dt.1st December, 1999 [Ann.3] and so also application for setting aside ex -parte award which has also been rejected vide order dt.20th December, 2005 [Ann.4].
(2.) RESPONDENT -workman, as alleged by him, worked in the office of petitioner from 1st July, 1987 on daily wages basis and his services were terminated by oral order w.e.f. 30th April, 1992. He further alleged that those who were junior to him were retained and without compliance of provisions of Sections 25 -F & G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his services have been arbitrarily terminated by petitioner. After notice of the claim application was served upon the present petitioner, written statement was filed, but no one appeared on their behalf thereafter. It was averred by petitioner in the CW 4958/08 written statement that respondent -workman was engaged in special scheme i.e. NRGP/RLEGP and had not continuously worked from 1987 to 1992 as alleged by him. Since there was no material placed on record to substantiate his engagement in special scheme except what was averred in the written statement, Labour Court proceeded on the basis of material taking note of statement of claim, affidavit filed by workman and so also other material, passed ex -parte award dt. 1st December, 1999 and while setting aside the oral termination which was given effect to from 30th April, 1992 directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman in service and he will be entitled for 50% of back wages of the intervening period. This shows the manner in which the State and its functionaries are working. Ex -parte award was passed in December, 1999 for the first time application was filed for setting aside ex -part award on 22nd March, 2005 and as usual it was averred by petitioner in the application that lawyer was engaged but he has not taken care of and have failed to file application and no information was extended by lawyer about passing of ex -parte award. Learned Labour court after taking into consideration the material finds no justification and consequently, rejected the application filed by petitioner for setting aside CW 4958/08 ex -parte award vide order dt.20th December, 2005. It is further to be referred that application for setting aside ex -parte award was dismissed by Labour Court way back in December, 2005, petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant petition in May, 2008 that certainly shows that how much the State and its functionaries are serious about matters. Counsel for petitioner submits that since the respondent -workman was engaged in special scheme i.e. NRGP/RLEGP, as such, he was not entitled to get protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it is a manifest error which the Labour Court has committed in passing ex -parte award and in support of his submission, Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of apex court reported in, 2007 SLR (1) 723. Respondent -workman had worked as alleged by him on daily wages basis from July, 1987 to April, 1992 and it was specifically alleged by him that he was engaged by the Assistant Engineer, Sub -Division, Irrigation Department, Sikar and so also Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sikar who was his employer and on the basis of material came on record with regard to effective working from July, 1987 to April, 1992, a finding has been recorded that he had worked CW 4958/08 for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months and certainly their action was in violation of Section 25F of the Act.
(3.) AS regards submission made by Counsel about respondent -workman being engaged in special scheme is of no substance for the reason that no material came on record which may show about his engagement in scheme as referred to supra. In absence whereof, learned Labour Court has not committed any error in recording finding of their action being in violation of mandatory requirement provided Under Section 25F of the Act, 1947. As regards submission made that he was daily wager as such, could not have been reinstated in service looking to the total period of service rendered by him in the facts of instant case he approached immediately after his services were terminated award was passed in December, 1999 and the workman is pursuing his grievance since termination was given effect to.;