State Of Raj. & Anr vs Chaina Ram & Anr on 14 November, 2008

                                    1

                  S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 824/2001
      State of Rajasthan & Anr.       Vs.       Chaina Ram & Anr.


                   Date of Order        ::      14.11.2008


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

      Mr Rajesh Bhati, for the petitioner/s.
      Mr Manish Patel, for the respondents.
                                 ...


      The appropriate government under a notification dated 20.2.1993

referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the labour court,

Bikaner in the terms that, "whether          termination of   workman Sh.

Gangaram     by Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sriganganagar        though

31.10.1989 is just and legal? If not, then for what relief the workman is

entitled?"



      The respondent-workman before the labour court came forward

with a case that he was employed with the present petitioner on

1.1.1986 and on 31.10.1989 he was terminated from service and the

termination so made is nothing but retrenchment effected without

effecting mandatory condition precedent as prescribed under Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act of 1947"). The employer-petitioner contested the claim by alleging

that the workman was employed in National Rural Employment Scheme,

and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1947 would have not been
                                    2

applied in his case. The employer in alternative also stated that the

workman was not in continuous employment as defined under Section

25-B of the Act of 1947 as to require compliance of the provisions of

Section 25-F   and 25-G of the Act of 1947.      The labour court after

considering whatever material available on record held that the

workman successfully proved his continuous service for a period of more

than a year as on the date of alleged termination, as such, his

retrenchment was bad being in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of

the Act of 1947.    Prior to that the labour court also held that the

appointment of the workman was not in a specific scheme but on

regular cadre. The labour court reached at the conclusion aforesaid on

basis of the muster rolls produced before it. While assailing validity of

the award dated 27.3.2000 passed by the labour court it is contended by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the labour court failed to

appreciate that the workman as a matter of fact was working in a

scheme and not with the industry in question.




      I do not find any force in the argument advanced.       The labour

court after examining the available muster rolls found that the

appointment of the respondent workman was not in any project or the

scheme and finding by adequate appreciation of evidence is also given

about continuous service of the workman. The order impugned is not

suffering by any error that may warrant interference by this Court while
                                          3

     exercising its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

     India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed.

                                                        (GOVIND MATHUR), J.

Jgoyal’