Dismissed

R S R T C Jaipur v. Badri Narain and Anr.

Rajasthan HC21 Jan 2015SAW/1044/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Special Appeal filed by the Employer Corporation against an award reinstating a workman or awarding compensation. The Court held that while statutory procedure under Section 25F was bypassed, the lump sum compensation awarded by the Labour Court met the ends of justice and thus granted.

What did the court decide?

Lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 in lieu of reinstatement was affirmed; appeal dismissed.

R S R T C Jaipur Vs Badri Narain and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

SAW - 1 0 44 / 13

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

I n The Hi gh Cour t of Judi cat ur e f or Raj ast han Jai pur Bench, Jai pur O R D E R D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1044/ 2013

¶4

Dat e : 21/ 01/ 2015

¶5

Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Aj ay Rast ogi Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce J. K. Ranka

¶6

Mr . Ami t Kumar Shar ma Adv. , f or appel l ant .

¶7

I nst ant appeal i s di r ect ed agai nst or der of t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge dt . 22. 07. 2013.

¶8

As per t he cl ai m submi t t ed by t he r espondent wor kman he had wor ked on dai l y wages basi s and i ni t i al l y engaged on 15. 10. 1986 and sat i sf act or i l y wor ked upt o 04. 10. 1987 and hi s gr i evance was t hat hi s ser vi ces have been r et r enched wi t hout due compl i ance of Sec. 25F of t he I ndust r i al Di sput es Act , 1947 ( “ Act , 1947” ) . Af t er f ur ni shi ng t he f ai l ur e r epor t by t he conci l i at i on of f i cer r ef er ence was made by t he Gover nment vi de i t s not i f i cat i on dt . 26. 06. 1990 as t o whet her t he t er mi nat i on of t he r espondent w. e. f . 03. 10. 1987 i s val i d & j ust i f i ed and what r el i ef t he wor kman was ent i t l ed f or .

¶9

Af t er t he r ef er ence was made by t he Gover nment t o t he l ear ned Labour Cour t - I , Jai pur , cl ai m pet i t i on was f i l ed by t he wor kman and i t was st at ed t hat he was appoi nt ed on dai l y wages basi s i ni t i al l y on 15. 10. 1986 and hi s cont r act was ext ended f r om t i me t o t i me onl y t o def eat t he pr ot ect i on whi ch i s avai l abl e t o a wor kman under t he Act , 1947 and as he has wor ked f or mor e t han 240 days i n t he pr ecedi ng 12 mont hs and wi t hout compl i ance of t he mandat e u/ S 25F of t he Act , 1947 hi s ser vi ces wer e r et r enched and t he t er mi nat i on be decl ar ed t o be voi d & he may be

¶10

SAW - 1 0 44 / 13

¶11

( 2 )

¶12

r ei nst at ed i n ser vi ce wi t h f ul l back wages. The wr i t t en st at ement was f i l ed by t he appel l ant empl oyer but t hi s f act was not di sput ed t hat he had wor ked f r om 15. 10. 1986 t o 03. 10. 1987 but t hei r def ence was t hat he had wor ked f or t he sai d per i od on cont r act and t hat was ext ended f r om t i me t o t i me and pl eaded t hat i t s a case of non ext ensi on of cont r act , may f al l wi t hi n Sec. 2( OO) ( BB) of t he Act , 1947 and t hat bei ng so t her e was no j ust i f i cat i on/ occasi on t o compl y wi t h t he mandat e of Sec. 25F of t he Act , 1947.

¶13

The l ear ned Labour Cour t af t er t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on t he mat er i al on r ecor d and t he nat ur e of cont r act ext ended f r om t i me t o t i me by t he empl oyer cor por at i on ar r i ved t o t he concl usi on t hat i s onl y j ust t o def eat t he r i ght s pr ot ect ed under t he scheme of Act , 1947 & cannot be sai d t o be a case of non- r enewal of cont r act and i s a r et r enchment u/ Sec. 2( OO) of t he Act , 1947 and ar r i ved t o a concl usi on t hat as t he wor kman had wor ked f or mor e t han 240 days i n t he pr ecedi ng 12 mont hs t he empl oyer has f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he mandat e of Sec. 25F of t he Act , 1947 and accor di ngl y answer ed t he r ef er ence i n af f i r mat i ve hol di ng t he or der of t er mi nat i on dt . 04. 10. 1987 t o be bad i n l aw and di r ect ed f or r ei nst at ement wi t h cont i nui t y of ser vi ce wi t hout back wages vi de i t s Awar d dt . 26. 05. 2001 whi ch was subj ect mat t er of chal l enge at t he i nst ance of t he pr esent appel l ant by f i l i ng wr i t pet i t i on bef or e t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge.

¶14

The l ear ned Si ngl e Judge af t er hear i ng t he par t i es & t aki ng not e of t he per i od dur i ng whi ch t he

¶15

SAW - 1 0 44 / 13

¶16

( 3 )

¶17

wor kman had wor ked i n 1986- 87 & t he per i od whi ch r ol l ed by now when t he mat t er come up f or consi der at i on f i nal l y ar r i ved t o a concl usi on t hat t he wor kman had wor ked f or mor e t han 240 days i n t he pr ecedi ng 12 mont hs and i ndi sput abl y t he mandat e of l aw pr ovi ded u/ S 25F of t he Act , 1947 has not been compl i ed wi t h, as a consequence t her eof t he wor kman deser ves t o be r ei nst at ed i n ser vi ce whi ch i s t he nor mal consequence. However , as r egar ds t he quest i on wi t h r espect t o appl i cabi l i t y of Sec. 2( OO) ( bb) of t he Act , 1947, t hat i s not cul l ed f r om t he or der of t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge and whet her quest i on was r ai sed f or consi der at i on t he counsel i s unabl e t o say so but wi t hout goi ng i nt o t hat cont r over sy we f i nd t hat t her e i s a f i ndi ng of f act whi ch t he l ear ned Labour Cour t i n i t s Awar d has r ecor ded t aki ng not e of cont r act & i t s ext ensi ons one af t er t he ot her by t he cor por at i on and cer t ai nl y pr i ma f aci e i t appear s t o def eat t he pr ot ect i on t o whi ch t he wor kman i s ent i t l ed f or under t he Act , 1947.

¶18

Af t er hear i ng counsel f or appel l ant , as r egar ds t he f i ndi ng whi ch has come on r ecor d & af f i r med by t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge r egar di ng t he ef f ect i ve wor ki ng of t he wor kman f or mor e t han 240 days i n t he pr ecedi ng 12 mont hs & non- compl i ance of t he mandat e of Sec. 25F, we do not f i nd any er r or bei ng commi t t ed whi ch may r equi r e i nt er f er ence but i n t he f act s of t he i nst ant case t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on t he t ot al per i od of ser vi ce r ender ed by hi m & t he per i od whi ch r ol l ed dur i ng i nt er r egnum per i od ar r i ved t o t he concl usi on t hat ends of j ust i ce

¶19

SAW - 1 0 44 / 13

¶20

( 4 )

¶21

woul d meet i f t he wor kman get s adequat e compensat i on i n l i eu of r ei nst at ement i n t er ms of t he Awar d i mpugned and accor di ngl y awar ded a l ump- sum compensat i on of Rs. 1, 50, 000/ - i n l i eu of r ei nst at ement and i f t he compensat i on i s not pai d wi t hi n t wo mont hs i t wi l l car r y f ur t her i nt er est @9% per annum f or t he del ayed payment .

¶22

What coul d be t he adequat e compensat i on i n a case wher e t he wor kman i s r equi r ed t o be pai d i n l i eu of r ei nst at ement i n t he r el evant ci r cumst ances has al so been t aken not e of & obser ved by t hi s Cour t i n 2007

¶23

( 1) WLC ( Raj . ) 474 and we do f i nd t hat t he compensat i on whi ch has been awar ded i n l i eu of r ei nst at ement t o t he wor kman t o meet t he ends of j ust i ce i n t he f act s of t he i nst ant case does not cal l f or any i nt er f er ence at l east i n t he i nst ant i nt r a cour t appeal .

¶24

Consequent l y, t he appeal i s devoi d of mer i t and accor di ngl y di smi ssed.

¶25

( J. K. Ranka) , J. ( Aj ay Rast ogi ) , J.

¶26

VS/

¶27

Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed/ Vijay Singh Shekhawat/ PAJW

R S R T C Jaipur v. Badri Narain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S R T C Jaipur v. Badri Narain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Infratel Ltd. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ram Lakhan Vs State Medical and Healthors

Bhagirath Sharma Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Shankar Lal Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Krishana Charan Sharma Vs U O I and Ors.

Tanu Chaudhary Vs State Home Departmentors