- (1.) This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 28.04.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota in L.C. No. 172/92, whereby he had answered the reference, made by the State Government in favour of the respondent-workmen and held that the termination of their services were unjust and illegal. Therefore, it was ordered that the workmen were entitled for reinstatement with continuity in services and back wages to the extent of 25%.
(2.) The relevant facts of the present controversy are that the respondent No. 1 and 2 were working with the petitioner-Corporation on the posts of Chowkidar and Driver respectively. They are said to have joined their services from 01.08.1987 and were removed from 01.09.1989. Thereafter, the respondent- workmen had raised industrial dispute and a claim petition came to be filed before respondent No. 3 with the averments that they were working on the aforesaid posts with the petitioner-Corporation and without any reason or prior notice, they had been removed from services w.e.f. 01.09.1989. It was also averred, in para 3 of the claim petition, that the respondents had been continuously working with the employer Corporation from 01.08.1987 to 31.08.1989 and, as such, they completed more than 240 days. Further, it was averred by the respondents that there had been non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947'), as neither any notice of one month nor any salary in lieu thereof had been paid to them. It has also been averred that no compensation had been given to the respondent No. 1 and 2 by the petitioner-Corporation before retrenchment of their services. Therefore, the respondents are said to have been removed from services in an illegal manner. The petitioner-Corporation had contested the matter by way of filing reply to the claim petition. Primary stand taken by the petitioner-Corporation was that the respondents had never been in their employment and therefore, there was no question of any notice to be given to them. It had also been stated that as the respondents had never been in services of the petitioner-Corporation, as such, the question of compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 does not arise. Accordingly, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed with the costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
(3.) The parties had adduced their evidence before the Labour Court by way of oral as well as documentary. The respondents had filed affidavits and they had been thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. Likewise, the petitioner-Corporation had produced documentary evidence by way of muster- role, etc. and one Mr. Rajendra Nainawat, the Manager had appeared in the witness-box, on its behalf. The learned Labour Court considered the matter in the light of the terms of reference made by the State Government and came to the conclusion that the termination of services of the respondent-workmen were unjust and illegal and answered the reference accordingly. The respondent- workmen were ordered to be reinstated and their services were ordered to be continued with back wages to the extent of 25%. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Corporation by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;