Principal Investigator and Co-Ordi. and Others vs Chandra Prakash and Others

By the judgment dated 23.09.2004, the learned Single Bench dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3367/2004 giving challenge by the employer to the award dated 31.10.2002 passed by the labour court, Jodhpur.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appropriate government under the notification dated 20.04.1999 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication in following terms:-

"Whether raising of industrial dispute after a lapse of 10 years by the workman Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Mishri Lal through Shri Vijay Mehta, Executive Member, Raj. Trade Union Congress, Jodhpur is justified? If yes, then whether the employer, Principal Investigator and Coordinator (Solar Energy), Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur is justified in terminating the workman from service with effect from 01.01.1986. If not then for what relief and amount the workman is entitled?"

The learned labour court after examining the entire material available on record answered the reference by the award dated 31.10.2002 holding therein that the delay caused in raising the industrial dispute was justifiable and the termination of the workman from service with effect from 01.01.1986 was not justified. The labour court declared the workman entitled for reinstatement in service without back wages. The petition for writ giving challenge to the award dated 31.10.2002 filed by the employer came to be dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide the judgment impugned.

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-employer is that the labour court as well as the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that no reason was available to the workman to raise the industrial dispute after lapse of more than 10 years. While defending termination of workman from service, it is stated that the workman left the services at his own, therefore, no need was there to adhere the mandatory conditions precedent as provided in para-V of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the ''Act of 1947''). It is also urged that even as per the workman he worked for a period of 258 days only, therefore, instead of giving the relief of reinstatement, he would have been compensated by way of awarding a lump sum amount.

Mr. Vijay Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 (Workman) while defending the award and judgment given by the learned Single Judge submits that a finding of fact is given by the labour court to the effect that the termination of the workman amounts to retrenchment and further that retrenchment was effected without adhering to the provisions of section 25-F of the Act of 1947, as such no interference with the same is desirable. With regard to the delay caused in raising the industrial dispute, it is submitted that under the Act of 1947, no period of limitation is prescribed, therefore, the labour court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the delay caused was not unjustified.

Heard learned counsels.

So far as the issue with regard to adherence to the mandatory conditions precedent for effecting retrenchment in the instant matter is concerned, suffice to mention that the labour court after examining the material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the appointment was not given to the respondent No. 1 in any scheme and further, he was discontinued from service with effect from 01.01.1986. Relevant discussions made by the labour court in this regard reads as under:-

It is not in dispute that before discontinuing the respondent No. 1 from service, the provisions of section 25F of the Act of 1947 were not adhered, therefore, we do not find any wrong with the conclusion arrived by the learned labour court. As a matter of fact even as per the appellant-employer no compliance of section 25-F was made before terminating the workman from service, being not required.

So far as the issue of delay in raising the industrial dispute is concerned, true it is that the Act of 1947 no where prescribes any limitation for raising an industrial dispute but at the same time, it is well settled that an industrial dispute is required to be raised as early as possible, and if any delay is caused therein then the same should be explained by adequate reasons.

In the instant mater, it is a position admitted that the dispute was raised by the workman after lapse of 10 years. In this period, he was serving somewhere else as admitted. The labour court looking to this fact denied back wages to him. We are of the considered opinion that in such circumstances, the proper course before the labour court was to award some compensation instead of awarding the relief of reinstatement in service.

In this peculiar background we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by modifying award impugned in the terms that termination of the workman amounts to retrenchment from service as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. The retrenchment was illegal being adopted in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The workman, however, shall be entitled only for compensation in a tune of Rs. 80,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service. The workman shall also be entitled for the wages as per provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947, if not already paid, being awarded by this Court under the order dated 5.4.2006.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.