JUDGMENT
Keshote, J.
1. The matter is placed on the application filed under Article
226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of the interim relief granted in favour of the
petitioner.
2. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The challenge has been made by the petitioner to the award dated 12.10.1998 passed by Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur in LCR No. 370/1998. The reference aforesaid has been decided by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent-workman. The termination of his services by the petitioner was held to be unfair and illegal. The directions were given to the petitioner to take the workman- respondent back in the service with continuity in the service. The respondent-workman was awarded 50% back wages. The Labour Court has found this retrenchment/termination of the services of the workman made by the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is held that in one calendar year i.e. from the period 22.7.1991 to 21.7.1992, the respondent workman has completed 240 days service. It is further held that before terminating the services of the workman, the petitioner has not followed the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that before the
termination of the services of the workman, the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act have been followed.
6. In view of this undisputed position, I do not find any difficulty to confirm the part of the impugned award wherein it is held that the workman has completed 240 days’ service in one calendar year. Otherwise also on merits. I am satisfied that this part of the award of the Labour court is perfectly legal and justified. The respondent workman is a workman and the petitioner is an industry. It is also accepted as a fact and finding of the Labour Court is also there in which, I do not find any illegality that before terminating the services of the workman respondent, he was not given notice or pay in lieu of notice and compensation.
7. Mr. A.K. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a fit case where the Labour Court should have awarded the benefits of the reinstatement of the respondent workman in service. In his submission, the daily wager has no right to post. It is contended that the permanent post was not available. It is a temporary arrangement made and no right whatsoever is accused to the workman for regularisation of the service also.
8. In contra, Mr. R.K. Pareek, learned counsel for the workman respondent supported the award. On being put by the court, the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the octroi is abolished in the Stale. From the record of this case, I do not find anything contrary to prove that the respondent workman was not working in the octroi section of the petitioner. The daily wager has no right to hold the post and for howsoever long period he would have worked, it will not confer to him any right to seek the regularation in the service. The recruitment of the Class IV services in the Municipality is regulated by the statutory rules and in case the prayer made is granted it will result in his regular appointment de hors thereto. This way, if the daily wagers are directed to be reinstated by the court, it will open the flood gates of the corruption and favouritism. It is true that the petitioner has not filed reply to the statement of claim but only on this ground, the workman cannot be given the relief. At the most the facts pleaded by the respondent workman in his statement of claim are to be accepted to be correct for want of reply thereto by the petitioner. So to the extent, the Labour Court held that the services of the respondent workman are in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may not be incorrect but the direction given for reinstatement of the respondent workman in service is not justified in the facts of this case. The principles of hire and fire as adopted by the Labour Court in this case may not be applicable in all the case of the termination of service of daily wage employees who were engaged for a short period. There is another reason for which this award of reinstatement of workman in service as made by the Labour Court cannot be accepted. If any illegality is found in the termination of the services of the workman for non compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner is free to terminate the services of the respondent workman after following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Where the services of the respondent workman are likely to be terminated but while after making the compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act how far is justified to order for reinstatement of the workman back in the service.
9. In this case, the workman respondent has been engaged in the octroi section of the petitioner as daily wager and octroi has already been abolished so otherwise also need of his services is not there with the petitioner.
10. In the result, this petition succeeds in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent that in lieu of the reinstatement, the petitioner shall be entitled for the compensation i.e. Rs. 5,000/-. The 50% of the back wages is calculated on the basic of the wages, the respondent workman was drawing at the time of termination of his services. Both these amounts are to be paid to the respondent workman by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. No orders as to costs.