[2023:RJ-JP:26155-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 726/2023
Shri Om Prakash S/o Makhan Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Village Panchlagi, Teh. Udaipurvati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur.
2. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Udaipurvati,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma with Mr. Nikhil Kumawat For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 03/10/2023 ORAL
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2023 vide which writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner challenging the order dated 18.10.2005, passed by the Labour Court dismissing the claim as has been put-forth by the appellant-petitioner for termination of his services by the respondents without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') has been dismised. The reason for not accepting the claim of the appellant was that the appellant was appointed under the Maru Vikas Yojana which came to an end in June, 1996 and his service was therefore terminated w.e.f. 01.07.1996. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:29:51 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:26155-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-726/2023]
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the courts below have failed to appreciate that appellant had worked with the respondents as a daily wager w.e.f. 01.04.1991 to 30.06.1996. For five years, he had worked with them and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, his services have been terminated. Learned counsel contends that nothing has been produced on the record which would substantiate the stand of the respondents that Maru Vikas Yojana has come to an end, or that the appellant had been appointed and worked under the said scheme. Learned counsel contends that there are various other schemes which were still continuing as is apparent from the cross examination of the departmental witness who had appeared. The factum that the appellant had been working with the respondents and in each year he had completed more than 240 days is not in dispute. He further contends that impugned order passed by learned Single Judge as also the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as also the award of the Labour Court apart from the pleadings in the writ petition.
4. Perusal of the orders would clearly indicate proper appreciation of the evidence and the pleadings by the Labour Court as also learned Single Judge. The evidence which has come on record and the pleadings clearly indicate that the appellant had been appointed under the scheme known as the Maru Vikas (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:29:51 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:26155-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-726/2023] Yojana which was in operation for a period of five years. He was, as per the pleadings, appointed under the scheme and continued to work for five years till the continuation of the Scheme. Thereafter, the scheme did not operate as no extension was granted. The factum that there were other schemes will not really help as far as the case of the appellant is concerned. Nothing has come on record that any other person along with appellant working under the Maru Vikas Yojana had been continued while terminating the services of the appellant.
5. In light of the above and keeping in view the fact that the appointment of the appellant was under a specified scheme and therefore for a fixed term with the scheme coming to an end, the employment of the appellant had also come to an end. The termination of the services in pursuance thereof, therefore cannot be faulted being in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would, therefore, not be applicable.
6. In light of above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same stands dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ Anil Sharma/ Pooja /21 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:29:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)