Bheru Lal Rebari vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

Govind Mathur, J.—In pursuant to order dated 13.11.2013 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, this matter came up for its adjudication in the spirit of Lok Adalat. This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the award dated 9.3.2000 passed by Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case No. 67/91.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appropriate government referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Udaipur in the terms that

A statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workmen with the assertion that they were in the employment of respondents for a period of more than one year but they were retrenched from service on 01.6.1986 without adhering the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1945 (hereafter referred to as ''the Act of 1947''). The Labour Court after examining the entire evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that the retrenchment of workmen Bheru Lal and Shankar Lal by the employer the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur was not just and proper. It was also held that the workmen were entitled to be declared semi-permanent as per Mines & Geology Department Work-Charge Employees Service Condition Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Order of 1976''), however, the Labour Court instead of making order of reinstatement in service, awarded compensation to the workman-Shankar Lal in a tune of Rs. 2500/- and a sum of Rs. 27000/- to workman-Bheru Lal.

This petition for writ is preferred only by workman-Bheru Lal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner workman that once the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the workman was entitled for grant of semi-permanent status under the Order of 1976, then there was no just and valid reason for not reinstating him in service. It is submitted that re-instatement has been denied only on the count that the employer was not having requisite work to continue the workman in service. It is asserted that so far as the work-charge employee is concerned, if he is made semi-permanent status, then he could have been taken even on regular cadre by the employer.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent employer with the assertion that the petitioner workman was engaged as daily rated workman and he was not required in service on completion of work where he was working. Nothing is stated in reply as to how the workman was not entitled for getting semi-permanent status under the Order of 1976.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner workman and also examined the award impugned.

From perusal of the award impugned, it is apparent that the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the workman Bheru Lal was eligible and entitled for grant of semi-permanent status under the Order of 1976. The requirement of such entitlement is that the workman should have remained in employment of the employer atleast for a period of two years. Such employee becomes entitled for grant of regular pay scale on conferring semi-permanent status. If the respondents would have granted semi-permanent status to him, then the employee would have received wages in the regular pay scale.

In totality of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Labour Court awarded a very less compensation to the workman, who was eligible for grant of semi-permanent status. Accordingly, the petition for writ deserves acceptance in-part. The impugned award is modified and the workman Shri Bheru Lal is declared entitled to have a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 27,000/- as awarded. The compensation awarded is required to be paid to the workman-Bheru Lal by the employer on or before 01.4.2014. In the event of failure to make payment of the compensation amount within the stipulated time, the workman shall be entitled to have interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum.