R.S.R.T.C. and Others vs Judge, Labour Court and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.�The instant writ petition has been filed by Raj. State Road Transport Corporation to challenge the validity of the award dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara.

As per facts of the case, the respondent workman was initially appointed as daily rated employee on 28.2.1984 @ Rs. 15/- per day and after obtaining training he was given regular duties of Conductor by the petitioner and granted the regular pay-scale of Rs. 490-840/-.

The respondent workman was allowed to work on the post till 20.4.1985 thereafter while following the provisions of I.D. Act, his services were terminated. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer and after failure of the conciliation proceedings the matter was referred to the appropriate government for making reference to the Judge, Labour Court. The appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute vide notification dated 07.07.1995 to the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara in which the following questions were referred:--

The Judge, Labour Court after taking into consideration entire facts of the case held that although the industrial dispute was raised after delay but at the time of terminating his services, the petitioner Corporation was under obligation to comply the Section 25F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act because the respondent workman completed more than 240 days in one calendar year from preceding the date of his termination and passed an award to taken the respondent workman in service.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the total tenure of the respondent workman who worked on the post of Conductor was from 28.2.1984 to 20.4.1985 and respondent himself raised industrial dispute after delay of seven days before the conciliation officer, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, even if the Judge, Labour Court gave finding that the termination was illegal on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act then also the respondent workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service as ordered by the Judge, Labour Court after 29 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court is totally based upon wrong finding, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed.

Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently argued that although there was delay in raising industrial dispute but the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara while granting relief passed an order for back wages w.e.f. the date of raising industrial dispute on 20.12.1992, therefore, it cannot be said that the delay is fatal in this case. With regard to finding given by the Judge, Labour Court for non-compliance of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act, it is submitted that for valid retrenchment, the notice or compensation is required to be given to the employee but admittedly in this case no notice or compensation was given prior to passing the termination order w.e.f. 20.4.1985, therefore, the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court is perfectly in consonance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that there is no substance in this writ petition for which any interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that the petitioner Corporation is not disputing the date of appointment of respondent workman and not disputing the date of termination but raised objection before the Judge, Labour Court that the respondent workman has raised industrial dispute after delay of ten years. In the opinion of this Court, the Judge, Labour Court has rightly held that the termination of the respondent workman is in violation of provisions of I.D. Act because no notice or retrenchment compensation was given to the respondent workman before terminating his services, therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara to declare the workman''s termination illegal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. However, the order of reinstatement passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara is not sustainable in law in view of the recent judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, in which it has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court that if Labour Court came to the conclusion that retrenchment of daily rated employee is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act then reinstatement with full back wages is not proper and in those cases compensation should be awarded. Para 7 and 14 of the said judgment reads as under:--

"7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, thee has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been warded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."

In view of above facts, at the time of passing the award for reinstatement the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner was under obligation to consider the important aspect of the matter that the dispute has been raised by the respondent workman after 10 years and period of work was only 14 months, therefore, he is not entitled for reinstatement and is entitled for compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

In view of above while following the aforesaid judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the award dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara is hereby quashed to the extent of order of reinstatement of the respondent workman with further direction to the Corporation to pay compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement in service because the respondent workman was appointed in the particular pay-scale of Rs. 490-850/- and his services were terminated way back on 20.4.1985 without compliance of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act for which respondent workman raised industrial dispute after ten years. The petitioner Corporation is directed to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the respondent workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.