Rajasthan High Court
Manager, Shri Modi Levigated ... vs Matadin Saini S/O Shri Ganpatram ... on 15 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 860/2021
1. Manager, Shri Modi Levigated Kaolin Pvt. Ltd., In front Of
Railway Station, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
2. Manager, Shri Modi Levigated Kaolin Pvt. Ltd., Paota,
District Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Matadin Saini S/o Shri Ganpatram Saini, Village & Post Pragpura
Via Paota, District Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Lamror
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
15/11/2021
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
27.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the
learned Single Judge modified the award dated 07.01.2020 passed
by the Labour Court-1, Jaipur.
The brief facts of the case are that the workman had filed
claim before the Labour Court stating therein that he was
employed as Electrician by the employer and remained in service
for a period from 01.01.1997 to 12.12.2008. His services were
thereafter orally terminated on 13.12.2008 which was in clear
violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957
(hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act of 1947").
(2 of 3) [SAW-860/2021]
The Labour Court passed the award on 07.01.2020 with a
specific finding that the employee had worked for a period of 240
days in the year preceding the date of retrenchment and
therefore, the termination order has been passed without
following the mandatory requirements of Section 25(F) of the Act
of 1947. The Labour Court therefore passed the award in favour of
the workman directing reinstatement with 50% of back-wages
from the date of retrenchment to the date of award.
Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the employer
preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge which was
partly allowed and the award of the Labour Court was modified to
the extent that in lieu of reinstatement as directed by the Labour
Court, the workman be paid a lump sum compensation of
Rs. 5,00,000/-. Against the said order, the present appeal has
been filed.
We have gone through the record. It is clear from the record
that the workman worked for a period of almost 11 years and the
Labour Court had reached to a specific finding that there was a
contravention of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947.
Learned counsel for the appellants has in support of his
submissions relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Haryana State of P.C.C.W. Store Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas and another
(2002) 5 SCC 654.
In our opinion, the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned
matter does not apply to the present case as the same was a
matter wherein there was a written contract of service between
the management and the workman and the question before the
court was as to-whether the termination of service of the
(3 of 3) [SAW-860/2021]
respondents is "retrenchment" in terms of Section 2 (oo) of the
Act of 1947.
We, therefore, find no ground for interference in the order
passed by learned Single Judge hence, the present special appeal
stands dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
PC Gupta/ashu /6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
