Allowed

Satyanarayan Purohit v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2015CW/10584/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order terminating petitioner's services. The Court held that the order violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as one month's notice or wages in lieu thereof were not given before termination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order Annex-4 terminating petitioner's services is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. Respondents to take action within two months.

Satyanarayan Purohit Vs State and Ors. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

: O R D E R :

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10584/2015

¶6

Satyanarayan Purohit

¶7

vs. State & Ors.

¶8

Date of Order 16.11.2015

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Mehta, for the respondents.

¶12

BY THE COURT:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order Annex-4 dated 31.07.2015 passed by the respondents, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated w.e.f 01.08.2015.

¶14

The petitioner was initially appointed on 01.03.2007 against the vacant post of Chowkidar on daily wages basis. Whereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents by order dated 10.12.2007. Petitioner raised industrial dispute; on failure of the conciliation proceedings dispute was referred to the labour court and the labour court by its award dated 01.08.2011, came to the conclusion that as the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') the retrenchment of the petitioner by order dated 10.12.2007 was bad and he was ordered to be reinstated back in service and was

¶15

¶16

awarded Rs. 20,000/- as back wages.

¶17

The award was challenged by respondent-State by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11372/2012. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 25.10.2012. Whereafter by order dated 10.05.2013 the petitioner was taken back on duty; whereafter the impugned order Annex-4 came to be passed by the respondents. The order reads as under:-

¶18

"श�म�न म�खर अभ�रन�� पर�र�जन� जन स��० अभ�० व��ग ज�धप � क� पत कम�#क 3845-46 ददन�#क 20.12.2013 क� स�थ स#लग नक व�त व��ग क) द*पपण� न�श� 73 एन स� 81 �क ए�# पत कम�#क 228-29 ददन�#क 30.4.14, 639-40 ददन�#क 29.5.14, 1413-14 ददन�#क 24.7.14 ए�# 4353-54 ददन�#क 21.1.15 ददर� गर� ननद/श0 क) प�लन� म1 औद�गगक व��द अगधननरम 1947 क� प��ध�न क� अन�ग � श� सतरन��रण प�त स�. ब�ब�भस#ह प � �दह� द9ननक � � न ��ग� शभमक क) अ�9ध ननर�क; क� ददन�#क 01.08.2015 स� सम�प क) ज�� ह9।

¶19

इनक� एक म�ह क� न�द*स � � न ए�# बक�र� क� ��ग��न ननरम�न�स�� सकम स��क@ न� प�प ह�न� क� उप��त क� ददर� ज��ग�। रह आद�श �तक�ल प�� ह�ग�।"

¶20

sd/-

¶21

(��ख��म शम��) अगधश�ष� अभ�रन�� जन स��० अभ�० व��ग खणF ��नग�

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order

¶23

Annex-4 passed by the respondents is ex-facie against the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed; it is submitted that though on the earlier occasion petitioner had approached the labour court, as now the order Annex-4 is on its face bad, the writ petition deserves to be entertained by this Court as action of the respondents is clearly highhanded and in clear violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned it was submitted that merely because the order Annex-4 was not accompanied by compensation, it cannot be said that the order is bad and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

¶27

A bare look at the order Annex-4 as quoted hereinbefore indicates that the order has been passed by the Executive Engineer seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner w.e.f 01.08.2015 and thereafter it has been indicated that the petitioner would be paid the compensation in lieu of one month's notice and the arrears after getting sanction from the competent authority and that the order would come into effect immediately.

¶28

Section 25F of the Act envisages as a condition precedent to retrenchment of a workman that either he is given one month's notice indicating the reasons for retrenchment or the workman is paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice.

¶29

Admittedly, in the present case neither one month's notice have been given to the petitioner nor the wages in lieu of notice has been paid for which it is merely indicated that the same would be paid after getting sanction from the competent authority. The order Annex-4 clearly falls foul to the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. The submissions made by counsel for the

¶30

¶31

respondents has no substance as the order Annex-4 passed by the respondents is in clear violation of the Act, which cannot be sustained.

¶32

In view of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order Annex-4 passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

¶33

The consequential action shall be taken by the respondents within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶36

Taruna

Satyanarayan Purohit v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Purohit v. State and Ors.

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

Vinod Kumar Vs Om Prakash Saini and Ors.

Dr. Suresh Chandra Shrimali Vs State and Ors.

Raj. State Roadway Employees Union, Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Praveen Singh Dabi Vs State and Ors.

Bhagwati Bishnoi Vs State and Ors.

Pushpendra Kumar Khatik Vs State and Ors.