Partly allowed

Soni Ceramics P Ltd. v. Labour Court Jodhpur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2007CW/1887/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Dispute adjudication. The court reinstated the mandate for the workman's reinstatement but set aside the direction for payment of back wages, holding the workman was not entitled to them as he voluntarily refused an offer to resume duties after a dispute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 23.04.1995 is maintained regarding reinstatement, but the direction for payment of back wages is set aside.

Soni Ceramics P Ltd. Vs Labour Court… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1887/1995.

¶3

SONI CEREMICS (P) LTD. VS.

¶4

LABOUR COURT, JODHPUR & ANR.

¶5

DATE OF ORDER

¶6

: 03.04.2007.

¶7

HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.

¶8

Mr. Rajeev Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. D.K. Parihar for the respondent.

¶9

By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 28.04.1995 passed by Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute Case No.151/90.

¶10

The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the present petition for writ is that the appropriate government referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labur Court, Jodhpur in the following terms:

¶11

“Whether termination of Shri Asha Ram s/o Shri Rama Ram from the post of Burner by the employer Manager, Soni Ceremics, Basni Road, Nagaur is justified and legal? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled.”

¶12

The workman came forward with a case that by an oral order dated 12.05.1989, he was discontinued from service by the employer and before doing so, the mandatory conditions precedents for effecting retrenchment were not adhered. The workman also alleged that if the termination does not amount to

¶13

¶14

retrenchment, then same was effected in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶15

In written statement, the employer stated that the workman himself left the services voluntarily as he was not ready to do the work assigned to him.

¶16

While giving challenge to the award impugned, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record that amply proves that the the employer was always ready and willing to continue the petitioner in service, but he himself refused to do the work assigned to him.

¶17

It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that there was no occasion for awarding back wages to the workman as the petitioner even during conciliation proceedings offered him to resume the duties.

¶18

I do not find any force in the first contention so raised as from the evidence available on record, it is amply proved that the workman was discontinued from service and he was not at all permitted to work as burner on the post he was employed.

¶19

¶20

So far as second contention is concern, from the statement of workman Asha Ram, it is apparent that before the conciliation officer, an offer was given to him by the employer to resume the duties, but the workman did not choose to join the service. I am of the considered opinion that once an offer was made during the conciliation proceedings to the workman to resume the duties, then there was no reason for not accepting the same. If the workman would have joined the services in response to the offer made by the employer, he would have earned wages against the work done by him. The period for which the workman has been declared entitled for getting back wages, is the period for that he did not choose to work at his own, therefore, no back wages could be allowed to him. In view of the above, grant of back wages to the workman is certainly erroneous.

¶21

Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed in part. The award impugned dated 23.04.1995 is maintained to the extent it relates to the reinstatement of the workman in service, however, the direction given with regard to the payment of back wages is set aside.

¶22

(GOVIND MATHUR)J.

¶23

Anil/

Soni Ceramics P Ltd. v. Labour Court Jodhpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Ceramics P Ltd. v. Labour Court Jodhpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaitan Bhambi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santokh Singh Vs State and Ors.

Gopal Singh Sisodiya Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Executive Officer M.B.Suratgarh Vs Ranjeet Ram and Anr.

M/S Raj.Co-Op Dairy Federation Ltd.and Anr. Vs Judge Industrial Tribunal and Anr.

Roshan Lal Vs Manager Rcdf Ltd. and Anr.