Vinod Kumar vs State of Rajasthan and Others State of Rajasthan and Others Vs Vinod Kumar and Another

Hon''ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari

Both, the workman as well as Employer, State are aggrieved by the award of Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara deciding Industrial Dispute Case No. 77/2003 Vinod Kumar S/o Chhagan Lal Tripathi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. whereby the learned Tribunal held that retrenchment of the workman w.e.f. 31.05.2001 was illegal and contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred as ''Act of 1947''); and therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement in the service with 25% of the back-wages.

Learned Industrial Tribunal in its award dated 20.06.2005 further observed that if there are no sanctioned posts of driver with the Revenue Department of the State Government then after following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the Employer can retrench the services of the workman.

The workman has challenged only later part of the observation in the award dated 20.06.2005, whereas the State has challenged the reinstatement with 25% of the back-wages itself.

Having head learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that while the workman''s writ petition No. 4494/2005 is absolutely misconceived and deserves to be dismissed because that observation is only re-statement of legal position, which otherwise also stands and it is always possible for the employer to retrench the service after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Therefore, the observations made in this regard by the learned Tribunal, does not cause any prejudice to the workman petitioner as such and otherwise since the award is in his favor, the obiter part of the award challenged cannot be assailed validly. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the workman being SBCWP No. 4494/2005 Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

As far as writ petition filed by the Employer-State is concerned, this Court is also of the opinion that there is no force in the said writ petition also, because the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal for reinstatement with 25% of back-wages are not illegal or arbitrary. On the basis of evidence placed before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal found that the workman was initially appointed w.e.f. 11.09.1997 and had worked for more than 240 days in previous calender year and since the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were not complied-with, the termination of the workman was held to be illegal and the workman deserves to be reinstated back in service. The award of 25% of the back-wages also cannot be said to be unreasonable or illegal.

Consequently, no interference in the award is called for and the writ petition (SBCWP No. 5979/2007) filed by the Employer (State) is also dismissed. No costs.