1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2233/98
State of Rajasthan
Vs.
Ram Lal & Anr.
.........
Date of Order : 05/02/2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. Vimal Kumar Mathur, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit for the respondent-workman.
BY THE COURT
By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award
Annex.5 dated 02.11.1996 passed by respondent No.2, Judge,
Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Udaipur (for short ‘the
Labour Court’ hereinafter) whereby the reference made to the
Labour Court came to be adjudicated and the Labour Court held
that the termination of services of the respondent workman by
the petitioner employer was illegal and therefore, was not valid
and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent
workman in service with continuity of service, payment of unpaid
2
salary and consequential benefits.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended by learned Additional Govt. Counsel
for the petitioner that the respondent Labour Court fell in error in
holding that the respondent workman has completed 240 days in
a calendar year. According to the petitioner, the workman did
not work for 240 days in a Calendar year and therefore, the
award is bad in law.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
workman supported the award impugned and contended that the
respondent workman was engaged on the post of Beldar with
effect from 01.01.1981 and continuously worked till his services
came to be terminated on 31.10.1988 and as such he has
continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year. According
to learned counsel for the respondent workman, the details of
the work undertook by the respondent workman have been
given in the statement of claim and affidavit of the workman and
the petitioner employer failed to produce the muster-roll and
therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the
petitioner employer. Learned counsel for the respondent
workman has also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Maiku Prasad, AIR 2009 SC
240.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
3
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
From the perusal of the award, it appears that the
respondent workman came with a case that he was engaged as
Beldar on 01.01.1981. As against the contention of the
workman, the petitioner employer came with a case that the
workman was engaged on 13.11.1982 as daily rated worker on
muster-roll. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner employer
filed certain muster-rolls but failed to submit the muster-rolls for
the entire period for which the respondent workman claimed to
have worked. According to the respondent workman, he worked
from 01.01.1981 to 31.10.1988 which is indicative from the fact
that the petitioner employer has filed various muster-rolls for the
years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987. This clearly goes to
show that the respondent workman had worked for all those
years and muster-rolls which were filed by the petitioner
employer were only for few months and the petitioner employer
has not filed all the muster-rolls for the period for which the
respondent workman worked and in the circumstances,
therefore, it was proper to draw an adverse inference for not
filing the muster-rolls. Relying on the evidence produced by the
respondent workman, the Labour Court held that the respondent
workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year and his
services have been terminated without complying with the
provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In
4
my view, the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Labour
Court calls for no interference. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in my view, while maintaining the
order of reinstatement with continuity of service, the order
directing to pay the balance amount of salary and consequential
benefits deserves to be modified to the extent that the
respondent workman is entitled for 50% back wages from the
date of reference.
Consequently, while maintaining the award impugned
to the extent of directing reinstatement of the workman with
continuity of service, the order impugned is modified to the
extent that the respondent workman is entitled for 50% back
wages from the date of reference.
With this modification, the writ petition is disposed
of. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp