Ved Prakash Sharma vs Chairman, Rajasthan Electronics Limited and Another

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Heard learned Counsel for parties.

Petitioner Ved Prakash has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 08.02.1996 of Labour Court, Jaipur.

A reference was made by the appropriate Government to Labour Court on question whether removal of Shri Ved Prakash by respondent from its services on 05.04.1987 was valid and, if not, for what relief he was entitled to? The Labour Court held such removal as invalid; however, since the Company/Factory in which petitioner was engaged, was closed down, instead directing his reinstatement, it required respondent to pay to petitioner back wages at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month and compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per year from the date of retrenchment till passing of Award.

Shri Alok Garg, learned Counsel for petitioner, submitted that once termination of petitioner was held to be illegal, the respondent ought to have been required to accommodate petitioner in any other State Enterprises. Learned Counsel submitted that Rajasthan Electronics Limited is a subsidiary Company of Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO), and on closure of Rajasthan Electronics Limited its employees were accommodated in other State Enterprises. The learned Counsel in this connection referred to the judgment dated 18.11.2008 of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5091/2001 Ratan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., and argued that employees of Rajasthan Electronics Limited were accommodated in the Instrumentation Limited, Kota, and the similar relief ought to have been granted to petitioner.

Learned Counsel for respondent opposed writ petition and submitted that no case was set up by petitioner before the Labour Court and for first time he cannot be allowed to make such plea before this Court. Even before this Court, petitioner has not impleaded either the State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, State Enterprises Department, or Instrumentation Limited, Kota, or even the RIICO as party to the writ petition. Directions similar to one passed in the impugned Award, were quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2197/1996 Managing Director/Director Incharge, The Rajasthan Electronics Limited v. The Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur and Anr., decided on 07.01.2010. Learned Counsel submitted that the judgment in Ratan Lal''s case (Supra) is distinguishable because in that case, the State of Rajasthan through Secretary, State Enterprises Department, Secretariat, Jaipur and Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation Limited were party. No such steps have been taken by petitioner in present case.

Upon hearing arguments of learned Counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that reinstatement of petitioner in any case could not be directed by the Labour Court because Rajasthan Electronics Limited was admittedly closed down. The Labour Court also could not direct absorption of petitioner in any other Public Sector or State Enterprises because that would have been beyond the terms of its reference. The petitioner could of-course make a prayer before this Court for his accommodation.

What has been prayed for by petitioner in present writ petition is that Award of Labour Court to the extent of awarding him back wages at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month and payment of compensation be suitably modified, and the same may be set-aside so far it relates to denying him benefit of reinstatement.

There cannot be any question of reinstatement of petitioner because respondent Rajasthan Electronics Limited has been closed down. No direction can be given for reinstatement of petitioner in Instrumentation Limited, Kota, for the reason because no such prayer has been made in the present case nor has petitioner impleaded (1) the State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, State Enterprises Department, (2) Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation Limited and (3) Instrumentation Limited, Kota, as party to the writ petition.

In such situation, I do not find any merit in the present case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.