Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department vs The Judge, Labour Court and Another

Govind Mathur, J.—In pursuant to the order dt. 12.11.2013 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, this matter came up for its adjudication in the spirit of Lok Adalat. In view of the fact that none is present on behalf of the parties, I am examining the validity of the award impugned on its merits.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appropriate Government by a notification dt. 17.11.1999 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that "Whether the termination of workman Mr. Khumanaram S/o. Mr. Nimbaram Bheel, former daily rated employee, represented through the General Secretary, Jalday Shramik Kalyan Sangh, Barmer by the employer Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Sub-division Dhorimanna with effect from 01.10.1985 was just and valid? If not, then for what relief and amount the workman is entitled?"

As per the statement of claim made by the workman, he entered in service being employed on casual basis on 01.12.1984. He was terminated from service on 30.09.1985 under an oral order. The workman alleged that his termination, as a matter of fact, amounts to retrenchment as defined under Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1947'') effected without adhering the mandatory conditions precedent to do so.

The employer in return contested the case with assertion that the workman, as a matter of fact, was not in continuous service being worked only for a period of 219 days. It was also contended that the dispute was raised at quite a belated stage and therefore, no relief as claimed could have been given.

Learned Labour Court by the award impugned answered the reference by arriving at the conclusion that the workman remained in continuous service of the employer for the required period and his retrenchment was without adhering the mandatory conditions precedent as prescribed under Sec. 25-F of the Act of 1947, therefore, so far as the argument pertaining to delay in raising the industrial dispute is concerned, the Labour Court held that the equities may be settled by denying wages to the workman for the period of delay.

By this petition for writ while challenging the award impugned the contention of the employer as averred in the memo. of the writ petition is that the workman did not complete continuous service as defined under Sec. 25-B of the Act of 1947 and therefore, the finding arrived by the Labour Court is bad. It is asserted that the workman in the preceding calendar year to his termination served only for 219 days. I have examined the award impugned and also the reply submitted on behalf of the workman. From perusal of the award impugned it is apparent that the workman substantiated his term of employment by adducing adequate evidence, but in rebuttal to that no evidence was adduced by the employer. As a matter of fact, the writ petition of the employer even did not choose to cross-examine the workman and other witness produced by him to substantiate the statement pertaining to the term of employment. Learned Labour Court in view of this factual background accepted the claim of the workman. It is well-settled that if the evidence adduced by the workman is not controverted adequately, then that is required to be accepted. As such, I do not find any wrong in the finding given by the Labour Court by accepting the workman''s version as stated in his affidavit. In such circumstances, no interference with the award impugned is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.