Hari Singh Sankhla S/o. Shri Bhanwari Lal Sankhla vs The Judge, Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal

This writ petition is preferred against the award passed by

the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter

referred as ''Labour Court'') dt.30/04/1997 whereby the learned

Labour Court has rejected the reference made to it with regard to

termination of the petitioner dt.14/09/1991 and has upheld the

termination.

Brief facts which cull out from the petition are that the

petitioner was appointed on the post of Electrician Helper, as daily

wages employee, on muster roll basis, on 05/07/1989 by the

respondent no.2 (Principal Meyo College, Ajmer) verbally and his

services were terminated by respondent no. 2, verbally on

14/09/1991 without following provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the ''Act of

1947''). After termination of Services of the petitioner, some

persons were given employment and services of the similarly

situated person were regularized and despite several requests

petitioner was not taken on duty. Therefore, the petitioner raised

an Industrial Dispute before Conciliation Officer against his illegal

termination but the settlement could not arrived at and the

Conciliation Officer submitted failure report on 18/4/1994. The

petitioner submitted a statement of claim before Labour Court on

23/09/1995 and subsequently filed proper statement of claim,

impleading respondents no. 3 & 4 as party on 18/04/1996 and

stating that he was appointed on the post of Electrician Helper as

daily wages Employee on muster roll basis on 05/07/1989 &

getting Rs. 20/- per day wages. His services were terminated on

14/09/1991. It was further stated that he worked for more than

240 days in one calendar year as per instructions of Electrician

Incharge Shri Tulsi Ram but he was not paid any compensation or

notice pay upon his retrenchment. It was also alleged that several

persons namely; Shri Raju, Raju Bhati and Sunil, junior to him,

were taken on duty and still working and Shri Neeraj Bhatt was

declared permanent and such act of the respondents was in

violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H and 25N of the Act of 1947

and hence the order of his removal should be quashed.

After service of notices respondents no 2,3 and 4 filed reply

to statement of claim separately and stated that the petitioner

was appointed as casual labour for a particular project work and

when project work ended, the services of the petitioner stood

automatically terminated. It was further stated that the

respondents never terminated the services of the petitioner and

provision of the Act of 1947 are not applicable in this matter

because the petitioner were appointed as casual labour in a

particular project.

Both the parties filed some documents in support of their

contention before the Labour Court and after hearing both the

parties, the Judge Labour Court passed the impugned award and

held that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned

post but he was given employment on daily wages basis for a

specific work and hence on the basis of case law cited by

Management, petitioner is not entitled for regular appointment

and any relief and as per the facts stated above, the termination

of the petitioner is not illegal & unlawful.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned award suffers from patent illegality. It was neither case

of the petitioner that he was appointed against permanent post

nor he was seeking regularization on the permanent post. There

was no question of the petitioner having raised any issue relating

to sanctioned post. Thus, it is submitted that the Labour Court has

travelled beyond the terms of the reference. It was his case that

he had been appointed as an Electrician Helper post on muster roll

basis and one Mr. Neeraj Bhatt had been appointed after the

services of the petitioner were terminated. It was submitted by

the petitioner that nothing material was placed on record by the

respondents that the petitioner was appointed only on a project

work. It was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on

daily wages basis as Electrician Helper with his other colleagues

namely; Mr. Neeraj Bhatt, Mr. Sunil, Mr. Raju and Mr. Raju Bhati

whose services were later on regularized while the petitioner''s

services were terminated. It was also submitted that the witness

of the respondents admitted this fact in cross-examination but the

Labour Court overlooked the specific pleadings. The provisions of

Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 could not have been applied.

Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported

the order passed by the Labour Court although the learned

counsel has also taken this Court to reply to the claim petition

wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner was working in

project work. However, on a specific query from the Court with

regard to the issue of regularization and appointment on

substantive permanent post, it is submitted that even if the said

issue has been diverted a little by the Labour Court, the fact

remains that the appointment was against a project post and the

services of the petitioner stood terminated after having worked for

a small period between 05/07/1989 to 14/09/1991 only. It is

further submitted that the issue relating to provisions of Section

25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947 could not be gone into as the

process of regularization of service was not proved.

After considering the submissions of both the counsel, this

Court is satisfied that the learned Labour Court has failed to

examine the case in its true perspective. The entire gamut of the

order revolves around whether the post was of permanent nature

and the petitioner could be appointed against the sanctioned post

and that he was seeking regularization by backdoor entry. In view

of such approach adopted by the Labour Court, whereby the

merits of the case have not been examined with reference to

Section 25-F or 25-H of the Act of 1947, the matter deserves to

be remanded. In view of the fact that the petitioner immediately

raised dispute of his termination and there is no delay in raising

the dispute, the impugned award dt.30/04/1997 deserves to be

set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the

learned Labour Court to decide the issue afresh.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

award dt.30/04/1997 passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in LCR No.131/95(229/94) is quashed &

set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour

Court to examine the record available with it and after hearing

arguments from both the sides again on merits of the case, decide

the dispute afresh without being prejudiced by the orders passed

by this Court or by the Labour Court earlier. Necessary orders may

be passed by the learned Labour Court within a period of three

months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

Both the parties shall remain present before the learned Labour

Court on 27/03/2017.