State Of Rajasthan vs Samundra Singh

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against award dated 01.02.2018 passed by Labour Court, Bikaner, whereby, the reference dated 17.08.2004 made by the appropriate government has been answered in the manner that the workman was entitled for reinstatement and a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards expenses.

The workman raised dispute about the wrongful termination in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') by the petitioner on 30.07.1999.

On reference being made to the Labour Court, the statement of claim was filed and the workman got himself examined and exhibited ten documents.

The claim was contested by the petitioner - State by filing reply and affidavit of one Hanuman Ram was filed, who was cross-examined and documents Exhibits-M/1 to M/6 were produced.

The defence raised by the petitioner pertained to fact that the workman was contratually employed and, therefore, there was no question of violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

The Labour Court after analyzing the documentary and oral evidence, which came on record including the statement of the petitioner's witness Hanuman Ram, came to the conclusion that the workman was engaged as a daily wages employee and not as a contractual employee, as claimed. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that there was violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act and consequently passed the award as noticed hereinbefore.

Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the finding of the Labour Court that the employment of the workman was not contractual is contrary to the record and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

A perusal of the record of present writ petition indicates that except for producing the award passed by the Labour Court, no other document has been placed on record of the present writ petition. Even in the grounds raised in the writ petition, the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the aspect that the workman was a daily wages employee has not been contested.

In view of the above fact situation and the fact that the Labour Court by its impugned award after analyzing the documentary and oral evidence has come to a categorical conclusion that the workman was engaged as a daily wages employee and his services were terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act, which findings have not been shown as perverse by learned counsel for the petitioner, no interference is called for in the award impugned.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.