The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, dismissed an appeal against the Single Judge who upheld a workman's claim of illegal retrenchment. The Court held the employer failed to produce records required to counter the employee's evidence. Reinstatement was ordered.
Reinstatement of the respondent workman to his previous post.
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 AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 282/2021
The Headmaster, Sardul Sports School, Bikaner Through The InCharge, The District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
Shri Vijay Shanker Vyas S/o Shri Shanker Vyas, R/o Mundharon Ka Chowk, Opposite Side Pujare, Bikaner.
| ----Respondents |
|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Rishi Soni on behalf of |
|---|---|
| Mr. PankajSharma,AAG | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Parmendra Bohra |
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
21/10/2021
This appeal is filed by the State of Rajasthan through its Education Department, Bikaner against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.12.2020 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.935/2008.
The respondent No.1 workman raised an industrial dispute claiming that his services were illegally terminated without following due procedure and in breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court allowed the reference in part and directed reinstatement of the workman, but without back wages by an award dated 26.10.2005. This award was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in writ petition filed nearly three years later. Through out the pendency of the writ petition, no stay was
(2 of 3)
[SAW-282/2021]
granted. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that the workman had established his case for breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the employer had not led any evidence to counter the claim of the workman.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it was the primary duty of the workman to lead proper evidence in support of his claim that he was illegally retrenched and that in a calendar year immediately preceding his retrenchment, he had actually worked for more than 240 days. Learned counsel submitted that the workman failed to lead such evidence. He lastly contended that reinstatement of the workman at this stage may not be possible since vacant post may not be available at present.
The appeal was opposed by the learned counsel for the workman. He supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we find that the workman had entered in the witness box and led evidence in support of his case and particularly contended that he worked with the Department for more than 240 days in a calendar year. At the request of the workman, the Labour Court had also directed the employer to produce the muster roll and attendance register for the relevant period, which the employer failed to produce without citing proper reasons. That being the position, the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge were perfectly justified in declaring the retrenchment of the workman as illegal. The Labour Court did not award any back wages for the period from the date of termination till the award was passed. The contention that at this distant
(3 of 3)
[SAW-282/2021]
point of time, the vacancy may not be available, is also not a valid argument. As noted by the learned Single Judge, through out the pendency of the writ petition no stay was granted. In view of this, the employer should have reinstated the workman. The passage of time cannot be cited as a ground to refuse to carry out such direction.
The appeal is dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
54-MohitTak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the workman was illegally retrenched in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether delay in following Labour Court's order for reinstatement justifies refusing reinstatement at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Vijay Shanker Vyas
Akil Kureshi
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
