Special Appeal challenging a judgment that set aside the Labour Court's award re-instatement. The Division Bench found the lower court incorrectly analyzed the appointment dates of subsequent employees regarding Section 25H violation.
Matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for adjudication afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 20/2018
With
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.361/2018
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3742/2001
Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sen S/o Gulab Chand Sen, By Caste Barber, R/o Plot No. 151, Barodiya Basti, Bani Park, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
02/04/2019
This appeal challenges the judgment dated 28.11.2017 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Bank of Baroda through its General Manager and set aside the award dated 24.01.2000 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Labour Court’), directing reinstatement of the appellant-workman.
It is contended that the appellant-workman was initially appointed on daily wages basis as Class-IV employee at a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.45/- with effect from 15.12.1992 at Tripolia Bazar Branch of the respondent-bank. The appellant-
(2 of 4)
[SAW-20/2018]
workman continued to render his services there till 20.03.1993, i.e., for a period of 97 days. The respondent-bank discontinued him from service with effect from 21.03.1993. Thereafter, the appellant-workman was re-engaged on 26.09.1995 and continued till 07.12.1995 on monthly remuneration of Rs.50/-. This time also, the respondent-bank discontinued him from service without assigning any reason in utter disregard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ID Act’), in particular Section 25H and retained his juniors in service on the same post. The appellant-workman raised an industrial dispute and a reference was made for adjudication. The appellantworkman filed claim petition before the Labour Court with several pleas, one of which was that the respondent-bank has regularized the services of similarly situated persons after completion of 90 days of service and that fresh appointments on daily wages basis were also made. The respondent-bank also filed reply thereto along-with affidavits of its concerned employees. The Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the services of the appellantworkman were wrongfully terminated and he was not offered reemployment which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 25H of the ID Act, and accordingly directed his reinstatement from the date his juniors were engaged/employed. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment, set-aside the award of the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we found that apparently the judgment of the learned Single Judge is based on the assumption that the Labour Court was required to first hold that Rajendra Kumar was junior to the appellant-workman and that the Labour Court has given
(3 of 4)
[SAW-20/2018]
finding that there is no mention of the date from which Rajendra Kumar was appointed and therefore Section 25H of the ID Act was held to be not violated. It was held that the provisions of Section 25H of the ID Act would not apply where after having worked from 15.12.1992 to 20.03.1993, he has been again re-employed from 26.09.1995 and worked up to 07.12.1995. After 07.12.1995, the bank, where the appellant-workman was engaged, has not engaged any other employee but the persons who were engaged in other branches have been mentioned although the date of appointment is not available on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant-workman has taken the court through the award of the Labour Court. The Labour Court in the award has categorically noted that the management has appointed Brijesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Meena in 1993-94 after the services of the appellant-workman came to an end and further Rajendra Kumar and Rajendra Solanki were also given employment. Date of appointment of Rajendra Kumar and Rajendra Solanki has not been mentioned in the affidavit but in the rejoinder the date of appointment of Rajendra Kumar has been mentioned as 20.03.1997 and therefore it is evident that Brijesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Meena were engaged after the termination of the services of the appellant-workman on 20.03.1993. Similarly, Rajendra Kumar and Rajendra Solanki were also engaged thereafter. The aforesaid finding of the Labour Court has not been satisfactorily analyzed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption that the date of appointment of Rajendra Kumar has not been mentioned in the award of the Labour Court and
(4 of 4)
[SAW-20/2018]
therefore, in our view, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for its adjudication afresh in view of above discussion. The writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 09.05.2019.
This also disposes of stay application.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
//Jaiman//72
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was violated by the termination of the appellant-workman's services given the recruitment of juniors.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sen
Bank Of Baroda
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
