1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
: O R D E R :
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1651/2005
Dy. Director, C.D.P.O., Pali & Anr.
Vs.
Shri Hema Ram
Date of Order :: 05.09.2008
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr.C.S. Ojha, Dy. Govt. Counsel.
Mr.Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this case, petitioner-department is
challenging the validity of award dated 14th
November, 2007 passed by the Judge, Labour Court,
Jodhpur.
Upon Perusal of the award, it is obvious
that services of respondent-workman were
terminated without following provisions of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
2
therefore, the learned Judge, Labour Court has
passed an award for reinstatement of respondent-
workman w.e.f. 01st November, 1995 with 50% back
wages alongwith continuity in service.
In my opinion, admittedly petitioner-
department is an “industry” and respondent is
workman, therefore, at the time of retrenchment,
petitioner-department was under an obligation to
comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act which is not complied with
by the petitioner-department, therefore, the
Judge, Labour Court has rightly arrived at with
the finding that termination of respondent-workman
is in violation of provisions of Section 25-F (a)
and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
finding of Judge, Labour Court is based on
appreciation of cogent evidence produced by
workman before the Court, so also, upon admitted
position of the case that respondent-workman was
initially appointed on 21st May, 1991 and worked up
to 31st October, 1995, therefore, there is no
dispute with regard to completion of 240 days by
the workman in preceding one calender year from
the date of retrenchment.
In this view of the matter, it is not a
3
fit case in which power under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India is required to be
exercised. The writ petition filed by petitioner-
department is hereby dismissed. The petitioner-
department is directed to reinstate the
respondent-workman and grant him wages and other
reliefs as granted by the Judge, Labour Court in
the award impugned forthwith and pay him salary
also with effect from the date of award. However,
it is made clear that for the purpose of
regularization of his services, respondent-workman
may file a representation alongwith copy of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi,
reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 before petitioner-
department. Upon filing such representation,
department shall decide the question of
regularization as per para 53 to 55 of the
aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court. No order as to costs.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J.
A.K. Chouhan/-