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.