Dismissed

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

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2007CW/1957/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed two writ petitions challenging a Labour Court award that declared the termination of a workman illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act, upholding the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed; the Labour Court award granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement was upheld.

M/S Raj.Co-Op Dairy Federation Ltd.and Anr… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

(1)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2541/1995 Roshan Lal v. Manager, Raj.Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Hanumangarh & Anr.

¶3

(2)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1957/1995 M/s Raj.Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Hanumangarh & Anr. v. The Judge Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr.

¶4

DATE OF ORDER :: 4^th April, 2007

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

¶6

Mr. D.K.Parihar, for the petitioner-workman. Mr. B.C.Mehta, for the respondent-employer. (In SBCWP No.2541/95)

¶7

Mr. B.C.Mehta, for the petitioners-employer Mr. D.K.Parihar, for the respondent-workman. (In SBCWP No.1957/1995)

¶8

These two petitions for writ are preferred to question validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated 5.7.1994 passed by Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Case No.167/1990.

¶9

In brief, the facts giving rise to present petitions are that the appropriate Government under its notification dated 30.11.1990 referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Bikaner for its adjudication in following terms:-

¶10

“WHETHER the termination of workman, Shri Roshanlal son of Shri Heeralal, resident of Village and Post Banwali, Tehsil Sadulsahar, District Sriganganagar, from service, by the Manager, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy

¶11

¶12

Federation Ltd., Hanumangarh, District Sriganganagar, is justified and legal? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?”

¶13

The workman submitted a statement of claim before the Labour Court stating therein that he was employed with the employer as daily worker/helper in the pay scale of Rs.350-430 under an order dated 8.1.1987 but his services were terminated by the employer on 10.2.1989 without assigning any reason. The termination made on 10.2.1989 amounts to retrenchment from service and that was effected without making compliance of the mandatory condition precedents prescribed to do so under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) and on that count termination from service is void ab-initio.

¶14

In written, the employer came forward with the case that the workman was arrested by police on 4.2.1989 during the investigation of number of criminal cases and a huge stolen property was also recovered from his possession, therefore, looking to his conduct and prestige of the employer he was discontinued from service. The employer pleaded loss of confidence with the workman and on that count justified his termination from service.

¶15

¶16

The Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, reached at the conclusion that the termination of the workman from service was bad in eye of law being in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court observed that the termination of the workman amounts retrenchment as that was not as an outcome of domestic inquiry. The Labour Court by the award impugned, while declaring retrenchment of the workman illegal, instead of making an order of reinstatement in service, granted compensation in lieu of that.

¶17

Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, SBCWP No.1957/95 is preferred by the employer and SBCWP No.2541/95 is preferred by the workman.

¶18

The contention of counsel for the employer is that the Labour Court erred while awarding compensation to the workman despite the fact that the workman was involved in number of criminal cases and the employer lost confidence with him. On the other hand, the stand of the workman is that the Labour Court erroneously denied reinstatement in service though his termination was found bad by the Labour Court.

¶19

¶20

Heard counsel for the parties and examined the award impugned.

¶21

The Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence available on record gave a specific finding of fact that the employer discontinued the workman from service without adhering the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947. The employer accepted before the Labour Court that the workman was discontinued from service due to his arrest, recovery of stolen articles and before terminating him from service. It is well settled that whatever serious allegations there may be against the employee he cannot be discontinued from service without adhering the principles of natural justice.

¶22

As a matter of fact, in the instant matters the termination of the workman was made in a simplicitor manner, therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly treated it a retrenchment and found bad being in contravention of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947. I do not find any error in the finding given by the Labour Court that termination of the workman amounts retrenchment and that was bad being in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947.

¶23

I also do not find any force in the contention raised by counsel for the workman that

¶24

¶25

after declaring the retrenchment bad the only course available with the Labour Court was to grant the relief of reinstatement in service with all benefits. The employer in its written statement pleaded loss of confidence with the employee. The Labour Court also considered and discussed the same as under:-

¶26

“न त� प�र� क� उसक� उक द�र�चरण क� सम�न� म� अप�र� द�र� क�ई आर�प पत ह ददय� गय� ह$ और न ज�'च क( गई ह$। इस पक�र घर�ल- ज�'च नह . ह�न� पर यह द�र�चरण प�र� क� व0रद स�व�त नह . म�न� ज� सकत�, इस3 पक�र फ5जद�र पकरण जजनक� ननण8य9 क( पनतनलवपय�' अन:ल�ख पर उपलब� ह$ उनस� :3 प�य� ज�त� ह$ दक प�र� क� उनम� द�षम�क दकय� गय� ह$। श�ष पकरण अ:3 :3 व0च�र�र8 सम�जन�त नय�य�लय म� ल.व�त ह$। ल�दकन, अ� तक दकस3 :3 फ5जद�र पकरण म� दकस3 :3 नय�य�लय द�र� प�र� क� नसद द�ष कर�र ददय� ज�कर दज?@त दकय� गय� ह$-ऐस� क�ई तथय पम�जणत ह�न� नह . प�य� ज�त� ह$। हम ऐस� म�नत� हC दक च�र क� म�मल9 म� ज� वयवक नलप ह� और प�नलस न� जजस� ननय�जन सरल पर छ�प� म�रकर नगरफत�र कर उसस� ल�ख9 रपय9 क( च�र क( स.पनत �र�मद क( ह� और उस3 क� फलस0रप अन�क च�र क� फ5जद�र पकरण व0च�र�र8 अ:3 तक ल.व�त ह�, ऐस� वयवक क� ननय�जन सरल पर ननय�जजत रखन� अप�र� स.सर�न क( स.पनत क( स�रक� 0 पनतष� क� दहत म� नह . ह$ और ऐस� वयवक क� स�0� म� रख� ज�न� 0�.नछत नह . ह$। कय9दक शनमक पर स� ननय�जक क� व0श�स उठ ज�त� ह$।"

¶27

In the event of loss of confidence with a workman the Labour Court is having ample power to mould the relief that is to be granted to the workman. In the instant matters the Labour Court has awarded

¶28

¶29

the wages of ten years to the workman as compensation and I am of the view that i.e. an adequate substitute to the relief pertaining to reinstatement.

¶30

In view of whatever discussed above, I do not find any error in the award impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

Accordingly, both these petitions for writ stand dismissed.

¶32

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

¶33

Kkm/ps.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Shaitan Bhambi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santokh Singh Vs State and Ors.

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

Roshan Lal Vs Manager Rcdf Ltd. and Anr.

H/C Raj Bahadur Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.