AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—The instant writ petition is listed today for decision with the spirit of Lok Adalat.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Company challenging the validity of the ward dated 23.1.2014 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby the Judge, Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent workman and while quashing the order of termination w.e.f. 5.2.2009 passed an order of reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur with regard to non-compliance of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act is totally erroneous and perverse because by cogent evidence it is proved by the petitioner firm that before terminating the services of the respondent workman, compliance of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act was made but respondent workman himself refused to accept the notice and amount of compensation, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Pramod Jha and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and submits that if employer direct the employee to collect the retrenchment compensation and notice from the Divisional Office and employee fails to do so, then it will be deemed that there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the ID Act and as per the facts of this case, the retrenchment compensation was offered but respondent workman himself refused to accept the same, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the award impugned as well as the copy of the notice placed on record as Annexure-1 and the envelope which is said to be sent by the petitioner firm to the workman. Upon perusal of documentary evidence, it is no where found that any denial was made by the respondent workman to accept the retrenchment compensation, more so upon perusal of Annexure-1 dated 4.2.2009, it is revealed that in this communication, it was informed to the workman that your services will be terminated w.e.f. 09.02.2009, therefore, you may accept the retrenchment compensation on 4.2.2009. In my opinion, this document is prepared after the date of termination dated 4.2.2009. Further upon perusal of language of Annexure-2, it can be presumed that the said order was not written on 4.2.2009 because in the said communication, the following assertion was made
The above order was issued on 4.2.2009, therefore, how it can be said that on the same day, the aforesaid language was used for the purpose of offering the retrenchment compensation.
In view of above, there is no error in the finding given by Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur to hold that the termination of the respondent workman is illegal and in violation of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the ID Act, therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.