Partly allowed

The Station Manager Indian Air v. Kumari Chandra Alwani and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2022CW/2340/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court modified an industrial tribunal award ordering reinstatement, as the petitioner was a daily wager. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held reinstatement was not automatic and awarded 2.50 lakh rupees in lieu of reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Awarded compensation of Rs. 2.50 lakh to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and modified the Tribunal's award accordingly.

The Station Manager Indian Air Vs Kumari Chandra… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2340/2006

¶3

The Station Manager, Now Designated As Area Marketing Manager Indian Airlines Limited, Nehru Complex, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶4

General Manager Personnel, Indian Airlines Limited, Northern Region, Safdarjung Airport, Now Igi Airport, Terminal 1B New Delhi.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kumari Chandra Alwani Daughter Of Shri B.c.alwani, Quarter No. 504, Rajapark, Sindhi Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶8

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur, D-228, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

¶12

10/11/2022

¶13

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as ‘employer’) challenging the Award dated 28.07.2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in Case No.CGIT-14/2003 (Reference No.L-11012/31/96IR(C-1) whereby the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as workman) was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service & 50% back wages.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the workman in her statement of claim averred that she was engaged upon oral directions on 08.06.1993 as a Bilingual Typist on daily wages basis and worked

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CW-2340/2006]

¶17

upto 10.04.1996, on which date she was illegally removed from service. It was also stated by her that she had raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaipur but since the Central Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication, at earlier stage she approached this Court by filing a writ petition in which this Court directed the Central Government to refer her dispute to a competent forum. It was further stated by her that she had continuously completed 240 days in a calendar year and retrenchment of her services is in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1947). It was also stated that after her alleged retrenchment one person namely Omprakash Sharma was engaged in her place as Steno-Typist, thus the action of the employer is also in violation of Section 25H of the Act of 1947 and lastly prayed before the learned Tribunal that she may be reinstated with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits.

¶18

The employer filed reply to the statement of claim and stated that the workman was engaged at times as a part-time Bilingual Typist on a consolidated payment of Rs.50/- per engagement, which was limited to 2-3 hours a day. It was further stated that the workman was engaged as & when need arose and she had never worked for a continuous period of 240 days in a calendar year. The employer also denied violation of Section 25H of the Act of 1947 and lastly prayed that the claim of the workman be dismissed.

¶19

Apart from documentary evidence produced from both the side, the workman examined herself as WW-1 while in rebuttal the counter affidavit of MW-1 Shyamlal Rao, Sr. Traffic Superintendent was produced. Both the witnesses were cross-examined from both the sides.

¶20

(3 of 5)

¶21

[CW-2340/2006]

¶22

The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the material on record arrived to a conclusion that the action of the employer retrenching the workman from service is in violation of Section 25F & 25H of the Act of 1947 and thus held the workman entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% back wages vide award dated 28.07.2005, which has been challenged by the employer by filing the present writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the employer submitted that the workman was engaged simply as a part time wager @ Rs.50/- per day and her services were taken only as & when required and not on regular basis and the workman had not done work on regular basis continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that there is violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 is not legally sustainable. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal also wrongly recorded that there is violation of Section 25H of the Act of 1947 as the workman failed to completely establish its case before the learned Tribunal and lastly prayed for setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶24

Counsel for the workman opposed the writ petition and submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the material on record and do not require any interference by this Court.

¶25

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. After going through the material on record and upon hearing counsel for the parties, in my view no interference is required with the award, however considering that the reinstatement cannot be automatic and if the transgression of Section 25F is established, suitable compensation would be appropriate remedy and

¶26

(4 of 5)

¶27

[CW-2340/2006]

¶28

therefore, in the facts and circumstances, in my view, in lieu of reinstatement some suitable compensation would be appropriate to award, as has been considered and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranbir Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 670, where in

¶29

paras-6 & 7 it has been held as under :-

¶30

“6. In the light of the state of the law, which we take note of, we notice certain facts which are not in dispute. This is a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant’s service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The authority involved in this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it is common case that the appellant was a daily wager and the appellant was not a permanent employee. It is relevant to note that, in the award answering Issue no.1, which was, whether the termination of the appellant’s service was justified and in order, and if not, what was the amount of back wages he was entitled to, it was found, inter alia, that the appellant could not adduce convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers. There is no finding of unfair trade practice, as such. In such circumstances, we think that the principle, which is enunciated by this Court in the decision, which is referred to in Raj Kumar (supra), which we have referred to, would be more appropriate to follow. In other words, we find that reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be appropriate remedy.

¶31

In such circumstance, noticing that, though the appellant was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court in 2006, the appellant has not been working since 2009 following the impugned order, and also taking note of the fact that the appellant was, in all likelihood, employed otherwise, also the interest of justice would be best subserved with modifying the impugned order and directing that in place of Rs.25000/(Rupees Twenty Five

¶32

(5 of 5)

¶33

[CW-2340/2006]

¶34

Thousand), as lumpsum compensation, appellant be paid Rs.3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand), as compensation, taking into consideration also the fact that the appellant had already been paid Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation.”

¶35

Thus, in view of what has been recorded above the award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified to the effect that in lieu of reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.2.50 Lakh be awarded to the workman.

¶36

Accordingly, it is directed that the workman be paid a compensation to the tune of Rs.2.50 Lakh in lieu of reinstatement and the award dated 28.07.2005 stands modified in these terms. Compliance of the judgment be made within two months, after receiving the certified copy thereof.

¶37

The writ petition in the above terms stands disposed of. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶38

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶39

Jyoti/13

The Station Manager Indian Air v. Kumari Chandra Alwani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Station Manager Indian Air v. Kumari Chandra Alwani 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

Anupama Basvaraj Patne D/O Shri Basvaraj Patne Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmal Kumar Gautam Son of Late Shri Niranjan Prasad Sharma Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vtran Nigam Ltd.

Pankaj Saini S/O Shri Ram Chandra Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Kumar Meena S/O Sh. Parmanand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Man Mohan Singh S/O Sh. Sohan Lal Vs Chairman Cum Chief Managing Director

Annu Kumar Kanjar S/O Lal Chand Kanjar Vs the State of Rajasthan