Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ram Lal vs Judge,I.T. Cum Labour … on 14 August, 2008
1
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1608/2005
Ram Lal
v.
Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Udaipur &
Ors.
Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinit Mathur, for the respondents.
....
This matter came up for orders on an
application for early hearing. While considering the
same, with the consent of parties, the matter is
finally heard at this stage.
By this petition for writ a challenge is
given to the validity, propriety and correctness of
the award dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Labour Court,
Udaipur answering the reference made to it by
appropriate government under a notification dated
9.4.1997.
In brief, facts of the case are that as a
consequent to regular selection process appointment
was accorded to the petitioner as Conductor with
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in the pay
scale of Rs.490-840 on probation. Initially the
appointment was for a period of one year. The employer
2
corporation terminated the petitioner from service on
6.5.1986. An industrial dispute to challenge
discontinuation from service was raised and that was
referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court,
Udaipur. The Labour Court, Udaipur after considering
entire evidence available on record held that
termination of the workman was bad, however, instead
of granting the relief of reinstatement allowed him
the wages of three months and eight days i.e. the
period falling short in one year services given under
the order dated 28.1.1986.
While assailing validity of the award
aforesaid it is contended by counsel for the
petitioner that the Labour Court erred while denying
the benefit of reinstatement to the petitioner in view
of the fact that the appointment under the order dated
28.1.1986 was not for a term of one year but on
probation for a period of one year. It is also pointed
out by counsel for the petitioner that all the persons
employed alongwith him under the order dated 28.1.1986
were allowed to continue in services beyond the term
of one year and, most of them are still continuing in
service. It is also asserted by counsel for the
petitioner that adequate evidence was adduced before
the Labour Court to establish the continuance of other
Conductors in service who were employed alongwith the
petitioner on 28.1.1986.
3
An additional affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondents sworn-in by Shri Ashok
Thanvi, officer-in-charge of the case making a solemn
statement that on verification of service record it
was found that the candidates who were appointed at
Chittorgarh Depot alongwith the petitioner are still
working. In the affidavit aforesaid names of the
persons appointed alongwith the petitioner at
Chittorgarh Depot are also given. It is also stated
that certain other persons whose names appears at
Serial Nos.9, 24, 36, 40, 52 and 54 in the order dated
28.1.1986 are also still working at Udaipur Depot in
pursuant to the order dated 28.1.1986. The admission
of the fact that the persons employed alongwith the
petitioner are still continuing with the respondents
in pursuant to the order dated 28.1.1986 itself
establishes it well that the appointment of the
petitioner was not for one year but was on probation
for one year. The employer before the Labour Court in
its statement of claim also accepted this position by
stating as follows:-
"प र क व पक न गम म न यनमत पर च लक क पद प
न यव पद ह क गई र बल#क उस आदश कम क 407
दद० 28/1/86 द प,रत
. य असर ई त1 प पर च लक क रप
म एक स ल क पर व क क ल प न यव पद क गई र ।"
The Labour Court, therefore, apparently
committed an error by treating the petitioner employed
4
only for a period of one year under the order dated
28.1.1986. As a matter of fact the finding given by
the Labour Court is running even contrary to the stand
taken by the employer. Further it is relevant to note
that in the order of appointment dated 28.1.1986 the
reference of probation is given in the note itself. A
person recruited through regular process of selection
is required to be employed on regular basis and that
may be on probation for specific term.
For the reasons above, this petition for
writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is
allowed. The award impugned dated 17.11.2004 is
declared illegal to the extent it allows only wages
for a period of three months and eight days to the
petitioner workman in lieu of reinstatement. The award
is modified by directing the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner with continuity in service and with
notional benefits regarding pay fixation, seniority
etc. The petitioner shall not be entitled for any
actual payment of back wages.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
kkm/ps.