Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal vs Judge,Labour Court Bhilwara And ... on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4920/2005
Babu Lal S/o Shri Durgashanker Sharma, resident of Village
Khntia, Post Suwania, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara
2. The Regional Director, Child Development and Woman
Department, Chittorgarh
3. The Child Development Project Officer, Child Development
Project, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Singhvi for
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
24/05/2022
The present petition has been filed against the award dated
24.01.2003 (Annexure-5) to the extent the back wages were
denied to the petitioner-employee.
The brief facts of the case are as under: -
The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on 07.10.1992
with respondent-department and his services were retrenched on
09.07.1994. Aggrieved against the same the employee raised a
labour dispute and the same was referred to the labour Court vide
notification dated 27.12.2000. The labour Court proceeded on to
allow the claim of the employee to the extent of reinstatement.
The labour Court reached to a specific finding that the employee
had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and
(2 of 3) [CW-4920/2005]
therefore, retrenchment of the employee by the respondent-
department is not valid. Consequently, the petitioner was directed
to be reinstated. But while allowing the claim of reinstatement,
the learned labour Court denied back wages to the petitioner on
the ground of delay in filing of the claim. It has been specifically
noted by the labour court that service of the employee was
retrenched on 09.07.1994 and the dispute pertaining to the same
was raised for the first time in the year 2000. Therefore, the
petitioner was held not to be entitled for back wages.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material
available on record.
As held by learned labour Court, it is true that the dispute in
the present matter was raised for the first time by the employee
after a period of six years of his retrenchment. A perusal of the
claim petition shows that no ground for such delay, whatsoever,
has been pleaded. Admittedly, the petitioner was not gainfully
employed after his retrenchment. Counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu
Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.)
& Ors; 2013 (10) SCC 324. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said
judgment laid down the propositions which are to be kept into
consideration while deciding the issue of back wages. The Hon'ble
Apex Court alongwith the other propositions, laid down the
following two propositions: -
"(i) In cases of wrongful termination of
service, reinstatement with continuity of
service and back wages is the normal rule.
(ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider
that while deciding the issue of back wages,
the adjudicating authority or the court may
(3 of 3) [CW-4920/2005]
take into consideration the length of service of
the employee/workman, the nature of
misconduct, if any, found proved against the
employee/workman, the financial condition of
the employer and similar other factors."
The proposition as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court provides
that while deciding the issue of back wages the length of the
service of the employee/workman should also be taken into
consideration. In the present matter it is clear on record that the
petitioner had completed only two years of service before his
retrenchment. The fact that the dispute was raised by employee
after a delay of six years is also admitted on record.
Keeping in view the above observations and keeping in view
the ratio as laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case (supra),
this Court finds it appropriate to modify the award dated
24.01.2003 to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to
50% of back wages from the date of his retrenchment till the date
of his reinstatement.
With the above observations, the present writ petition is
partly allowed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
11-Dharmendra/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
