PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may kindly be pleased to call for and examine the entire record of the respondent No.1 and by an appropriate writ/order or direction the Award dated 3.8.2004 as well as reference and all proceedings in the matter taken by the Labour Court, Bharatpur may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may kindly be quashed and set aside."
(2.) The petitioner being a Corporation is a Government Company under Section 617 of the (2 of 8) [CW-5428/2006] Companies Act and it's management, supervision and finances are being controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Respondent No.2 joined the petitioner-Corporation as a watchman on 21.07.1983 and continued in the service till 9.8.1985. The industrial dispute was raised and respondent No.2 claimed reinstatement with back wages. Respondent No.2 claimed that he had completed more than 300 days which is before the termination on 9.8.1985 and the mandatory compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1947') was not made. The non-compliance of Section 25F and 25G of the Act of 1947 required the employer to revisit order of termination. The glaring fact in the matter was that the State Government refused reference on an earlier occasion as the Union of India was said to have been employer of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to pursue remedy against the labour Commissioner, Central Government who also refused to refer the matter on account of not being employer. The petitioner again raised the same dispute with the State Government which this time referred the matter to the Tribunal on 13.03.1990. The labour Court has passed an award on 3.8.2004 ordering reinstatement of respondent No.2 with continuity of service and all benefits including the wages from the date of Award. However, the Counsel for the petitioner Shri Anurag Agrawal, submits that the reference by the State Government itself was illegal and thus, there is no foundation of the Award passed by the labour Court. Counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 had abandoned his service and was therefore, not entitled to any relief from the labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the labour Court did not find outright violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947.
(3.) Counsel for respondent Shri JP Sharma, however, submits that the Award has been lawfully passed and the respondent No.2 being a poor workman could not have been refused reference by both the Governments i.e. the Government of India and the Government of Rajasthan. Counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that it is a mockery of justice if a poor workman is refused the basic protection given under the Industrial Dispute Act so much so that even his dispute was not referred by both the Governments and subsequently, was referred by the State Government. Counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that the justice has not been done to a poor man who has suffered all his life due to unemployment and unlawful termination of service and has neither been reinstated nor being compensated on unlawful termination.;