State of Raj. and Others vs Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur and Another Karan Singh Vs State of Raj. and Others

Hon''ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari

These three writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

Writ Petition No. 3672/1998 has been filed by the employer State being aggrieved of the ex-parte award of the Industrial Tribunal (Annex.5) dated 15/1/1994 deciding Industrial Dispute case 144/89 Karan Singh vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Sirohi. The Industrial Tribunal in its award dated 15/1/1994 held that the termination of workman was illegal and in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service as driver and was also held entitled to back wages. The application for setting aside the ex-parte award was rejected by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the workman filed Writ Petition No. 2673/1997 in this Court seeking implementation of the said award dated 15/1/1994. In the meanwhile, the proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Act in case no. 134/1997 Karan Singh vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Sirohi were also allowed on 17/9/1998 and the learned Tribunal directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 77630/- to the workman. Being aggrieved of the said order, the State of Raj. has filed Writ Petition No. 4177/1998.

Learned counsel for the respondent workman, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary submitted that during the pendency of this litigation, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sirohi has reinstated the workman back in service vide order dated 16/12/2001, however, despite such reinstatement, subject to final decision of writ petition, the petitioner workman, who is working as a full time Driver with the Forest Department, is being paid only Rs. 700/- p.m. as per the last pay drawn by him before his illegal termination on 29/8/85. He, therefore, prayed that at least minimum wages should be paid to the respondent workman.

Learned counsel for the petitioner State, Mr. M.A.Siddiqui submitted that the petitioner State could not defend its case before the Industrial Tribunal and on account of transfer of concerned officer it could not even file written statement and contest the said case before the learned Tribunal.

In view of the statement made at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioner State and in the interest of justice, this Court considers it expedient to remand the case back to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner State. However, such an opportunity can be given subject to payment of cost to be realized from the concerned officer in charge, who at the relevant time was expected to take timely action during the pendency of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur. The petitioner - Divisional Forest Officer, Sirohi shall accordingly recover the cost of Rs. 2000/- from the salary/pension/retiral benefits of the officer-in-charge, who was looking after the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner Department during the pendency of such industrial dispute before the Industrial Dispute, Jodhpur & the said cost will be deposited in the State Treasury within a period of two months from today.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned ex-parte award dated 15/1/1994 is set aside and Industrial Dispute case No.144/89 is remanded back to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur for decision afresh. Both the parties may appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 16/1/2012 and, thereafter, the learned Tribunal may proceed to decide the said dispute in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. However, during the pendency of such industrial dispute, the services of workman - Karan Singh already reinstated in service on 16/12/2001 shall not be terminated and he shall also be paid the minimum of wages in accordance with law. The payment under the order dated 17/9/1998 passed u/s 33C(2) of the Act shall also abide by the final award to be passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.