In this writ petition, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a Labour Court award regarding retrenchment. The Court held that the Labour Court's finding that the workman had not completed 240 days of service was a matter of fact requiring no interference.
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
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1048/2004
Bhani Ram, S/o Shri Sardara Ram, B/c Jat, aged 40 years, resident of Jeevandeshar, Tehsil Padampur, District Shri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Sankhla. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
28/09/2022
The present petition has been filed for assailing validity and propriety of the award dated 07.08.2002, passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in Labour Dispute No.60/1999. The Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner-workman was referred by the appropriate Government vide notification dated 10.09.1999, to the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar for adjudication in the following terms:-
“Whether the retrenchment of workman Bhani Ram S/o Sardara Ram Jat R/o Jeevandeshar, Padampur Distt. Shri Ganganagar w.e.f. 02.11.1994 from the employer, Chairma, Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Tamkot Tehsil Padampur Distt. Shri Ganga Nagar/ Asst. ExecutiveOfficer Shri Ganga Nagar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Branch Padampur is
(2 of 3) [CW-1048/2004]
legal and valid? If not to what relief and amount the workman is entitled for?”
Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that petitioner-workman was appointed as Assistant Manager, in Sri Ganaganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Limited, Branch Padampur, Tehsil Padampur in Govind Varahat Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti, on 24.02.1994 till 30.06.1994 on ad-hoc basis for consolidated salary of Rs.625/- per month. However, his services were terminated on 30.06.1994. Against aforesaid termination, an industrial dispute was raised as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1947’) with a prayer that termination may be declared illegal and the petitionerworkman be reinstated in service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-workman had worked continuously with employer, from 24.02.1994 to 30.06.1994. However, the charge of Samiti was transferred to one Gurmail Singh on 12.05.1994. Counsel further submitted that services of the petitioner-workman were terminated without adhering the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1947. Counsel urged that the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar failed to appreciate that employer did not produce any evidence on record justifying the termination of petitioner-workman from services therefore, the award dated 07.08.2002 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner-workman had worked with respondents, only for a brief period i.e. from 24.02.1994 to 30.06.1994. Counsel further submitted that petitioner-workman, while working on
(3 of 3)
[CW-1048/2004]
probation was served with two notices dated 17.04.1994 and
23.04.1994, the work was found to be unsatisfactory. Counsel further submitted that in the meeting of governing body of Govind Varahat Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti dated 01.05.1994, one Shri Gurmail Singh was appointed as Manager in place of petitionerworkman. Counsel urged that since the petitioner-workman was appointed on probation, the discontinuance of services, thereof does not attract the provisions of Act of 1947.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The Labour Court after hearing the parties and analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record reached to a definite finding that the petitioner-workman had not worked with the employer up to 02.11.1994 and therefore, had not completed 240 days as required by the Act of 1947. A finding has also been recorded that the services of the petitioner-workman while on probation were found to be unsatisfactory, and therefore, he was discontinued from services.
It is a settled law that the finding of fact recorded by Labour Court are not required to be interfered with unless the same is vitiated on error of law apparent on the face of record.
The result of the aforesaid is that the impugned award dated 07.08.2002, does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
Prashant/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the finding of the Labour Court that the workman did not complete the required 240 days of continuous service for reinstatement.
Whether the discontinuation of services of a probationer attracts the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhani Ram
The Labour Court, Shri Ganganagar
Govind Varahat Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti
Shri Ganganagar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
