2023 LLR 302
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Arun Bhansali, J
Hon'ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J.
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 754/2014, Dt/ 18-1-2023
Dist. Opium Officer, Narcotics Department, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Government of India, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
vs.
Suresh Kumar Jeengar and Anr.
A. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 Section 25F Violation of Consequences of Workman raised an industrial dispute Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages holding the termination in violation of section 25F of the Act, since neither notice nor the compensation in lieu of notice before retrenchment was given to workman Management challenged award in writ petition which was dismissed Management filed writ appeal Held, appellant has failed to point out any perversity in impugned finding of the Labour Court and Writ Court so as to require interference by this Court Admitted attendance records clearly prove that workman had regularly worked between from 2001 to 2003 Admittedly no notice or compensation in view of notice was given to petitioner before termination It establishes non-compliance of provisions of section 25F of the Act Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Paras 7, 10 and 11
B. PLEA When not admissible before Writ Appellate Court Labour Court after considering the material available on record, have recorded a categorical finding that management is an Industry within the parameters of the provisions of the Act as per law settled Management did not challenge this aspect before writ court that management is an industry Hence, appellant/petitioner now again cannot re-agitate the issue, which apparently was abandoned before the writ court. Para 10
C. PLEA NOT INITIALLY TAKEN Not admissible later on Held, as per settled law after recording of finding of violation of provisions of the Act, it is not open for the employer to raise the plea regarding the engagement of workman being not regular. Para 11
For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit and Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit, Advocates.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Anirudh Purohit, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Order
Arun Bhansali, J . and Ashok Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant against award dated 14.09.2012 passed by Labour Court, Bhilwara has been dismissed.
2. The respondent-workman raised dispute and the appropriate Government referred the dispute on 28.11.2006 to the Labour Court, Bhilwara whether action of the Management of District Opium Officer, Narcotics Department, Bhilwara is legal and justified, if not, to what relief is the workman entitled to.
3. The workman filed statement of claim, which was contested by the petitioner-appellant, after evidence was led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of workman's services were in violation of the provision of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 2011 (the Act'), inasmuch as, neither he was given notice nor the compensation in lieu of notice before retrenchment and, therefore, directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge by his impugned order came to the conclusion that the Labour Court has given a clear-cut finding that termination of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act, which finding does not require any interference and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the issue was raised before the Labour Court that the appellant did not fall within the definition of Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the Act and as such, the labour dispute was not maintainable against it before the Labour Court, which was decided by the Labour Court relying on judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. v. R. Rajappa & Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 548, which determination is incorrect.
6. Further submissions were made that no case of violation of provisions of section 25F was made out before the Labour Court, however, the award impugned was passed, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the award as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the claim made by the respondent deserves to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Workman made submissions that the plea about the employer being not an Industry, though was raised before the Labour Court, which has rightly decided the issue, the said plea was abandoned before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, now it is not open for the appellant to raise the issue all over again.
8. Further submissions have been made that the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact pertaining to violation of provisions of section 25F, the petitioner appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the said finding so as to require interference by this Court and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal.
We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
9. So far as the plea raised regarding the appellant-petitioner being not an Industry within the parameters of section 2(j) of the Act, the Labour Court after considering the material available on record, recorded a categorical finding about the petitioner being an Industry within the parameters of the provisions with reference to the judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra).
10. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reveals that before him no plea was raised on the said aspect and, therefore, apparently before the learned Single Judge the appellant abandoned the plea pertaining to the appellant being not an Industry and, therefore, the petitioner now again cannot re-agitate the issue, which apparently was abandoned before the learned Single Judge. Coming to the issue of violation of provisions of section 25F of the Act, the Labour Court by its award with reference to the documents exhibited before it, i.e., Exhibit M1 to M29, i.e., the attendance register and Exhibit M30 to M48, i.e., the payment receipts, came to the conclusion that the workman had regularly worked between June, 2001 to June 2003.
11. The Labour Court also observed that the documents were proved by the officer of the petitioner/appellant, who has clearly admitted the fact of the petitioner having worked during the said period, based on which, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was violation of provisions of section 25F as admittedly no notice or compensation in view of notice was given to the petitioner before termination.
12. The learned Single Judge, noticed the award and the finding and was of the opinion that if a workman had worked for a very short period, he may not be entitled to any relief, however, as the workman in the present case have worked for over 4 years, the non-compliance of provisions of section 25F, which is writ large on the record, could not be ignored.
13. In view of the categorical finding recorded by the Labour Court based on the documents produced and the statements recorded and as upheld by the learned Single Judge and the petitioner/appellant having failed to point out any perversity in the said finding recorded by the Labour Court and learned Single Judge, no interference on the said aspect is called for.
14. A plea was sought to be raised that the nature of appointment of the respondent-Workman was not regular and, therefore, he was not entitled to the relief as granted by the Labour Court.
15. On the said aspect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durgapur Casual Workers Union & Ors. v. Food Corporation of India & Ors. , 2015 AIR SCW has laid down that after recording of finding of violation of provisions of the Act, it is not open for the employer to raise the plea regarding the engagement itself being not regular.
In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition against the order of the Labour Court.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.