AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners/State have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award dated 30.07.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Case No. 121/I.D.Act/Reference/2012 (Rajkumar & others Vs. Executive Engineer) by which the learned Labour Court has reinstated the respondents without back-wages.
The brief facts as reflected from records are that the respondents/ workmen who were working as Labour on daily wages basis and by an oral order, their services were discontinued without any notice, therefore, the respondents raised industrial dispute before the appropriate government who in turn initiated conciliation proceedings which became failure, as such the matter was referred to the appropriate government who had referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication of the industrial dispute.
Learned Labour Court registered the said reference as Case No. 121/I.D.Act/Reference/2012 wherein respondents have filed statement of claim contending that they have worked more than 240 days continuously on the post of Labour and without any written order orally their services were terminated. It has been further contended that there is requirement of Labour in the department and their services have been terminated without compliance of provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, as such the oral termination is illegal and they deserve to be reinstated with full back-wages.
The State/petitioners filed their reply to the statement of claim specifically denying the contentions made in the statement of claim. It has been contended that the respondents have never worked with them for 240 days continuously, therefore, compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act is not required to be followed, as such the oral termination is legal, justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
The State has examined K.K. Baghel, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipariya who in the cross-examination has admitted that the respondents were appointed for exigency of work on daily wages basis. Learned Labour Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the material placed on record vide award dated 30.07.2016 has partly allowed the statement of claim preferred by respondents reinstating them without back-wages.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/State would submit that the learned Labour has passed the award without appreciating the material placed on record in its true perspective, therefore, the same suffers from perversity and illegality which requires interference by this Court. He would further submit that the workmen have nowhere pleaded or proved that they has worked 240 days continuously before the date of termination to overcome the rider as provided under Section 25B of the ID Act which is necessary to get protection under Section 25(F) of the ID Act, as such the award passed by the learned Labour Court is liable to be set aside by this Court.
From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the State Government has referred the matter by recording its finding that there was industrial dispute and thereafter after failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Labour Court where the Court finds that dispute still exists, though raised belatedly, answered the reference by reinstating the petitioners without backwages, as such the award on the count of delay of raising dispute is not liable to be interfered by this Court as the Labour Court has already molded the relief by reinstating the workmen without backwages.
The view of this Court is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & another [(2015) 15 SCC 1] wherein it has been held in paragraphs 43 & 44 as under:-
“43.We may hasten to clarify that in those cases where the Court finds that dispute still existed, though raised belatedly, it is always permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is still open for the Court to either grant reinstatement without back wages or lesser back wages or grant compensation instead of reinstatement. We are of the opinion that the law on this issue has to be applied in the aforesaid perspective in such matters. 44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, yet it is for the 'appropriate Government' to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words 'at any time' used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry.”
From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the workmen are unable to prove that they have worked 240 days continuously which is the condition precedent to get benefit under Section 25B of the ID Act, therefore, on this count alone, the award passed by the learned Labour Court is liable to be set aside but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that the workmen have already been reinstated in service and since then they are working, therefore, there will be no justifiable for this Court to direct the petitioner/State to discontinue the engagement of the respondents or to pass order terminating the services of the respondents in view of setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court by this Court. However, the petitioner/State is at liberty to take appropriate action if the exigency so arises other than setting aside the award passed by the by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No. 121/I.D.Act/Reference/2012 by this Court.
Accordingly, the instant petition is partly allowed reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner/State as aforestated.