Rajasthan High Court
R.M. Bank Of Baroda vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 31 January, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:5233]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3229/2000
The Regional Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Anand Bhawan,
Sansarchandra Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Preisding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal,
Jaipur.
2. Shri Giriraj Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, C/o Shri O.P.
Sharma, F-6, Major Shaitan-Singh Colony, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala, G.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
31/01/2024
1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned
order dated 22.11.1999 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal,
Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") in Case No. CGIT/7/1997,
whereby the dismissal of the respondent-workman was set aside
and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-
workman along with 50% back-wages.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent-workman was engaged on ad hoc basis as a
temporary hand on daily wages and only worked for a period of 70
days from 20.10.1989 to 12.01.1990 and for 66 days from
26.07.1993 to 05.10.1993, for a total of less than 240 days. It is
contended that there was no employer-employee relationship as
the appointment of the respondent-workman was on temporary
and on daily wages to meet the exigency of work. Since the
[2024:RJ-JP:5233] (2 of 4) [CW-3229/2000]
services of the respondent-workman was not regular and since the
respondent-workman had not completed 240 days in regular
service, there was no violation of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "ID Act"), a finding
which was also recorded by the Tribunal. However, despite
recording the said finding erroneously ordered reinstatement of
the respondent-workman solely on the ground that there was a
violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957
(for short "ID Rules"), which requires the employer to prepare and
maintain seniority list of workmen in the particular category from
which retrenchment is contemplated. It is contended that seniority
list for adhoc temporary or casual engagement on daily wages is
not required to be made. Furthermore, Rule 77 of the ID Rules
cannot be examined in isolation, specially when there was no
violation of Rule 76 of ID Rules. Even otherwise, mere violation of
Rule 77 of the ID Rules cannot result in reinstatement when
provisions of ID Act are not found to be violated and any violation
of Rule 77 of the ID Rules can only attract penalty as prescribed in
Rule 79 of ID Rules. Reliance in this regard is placed on Hon'ble
Supreme Court judgment of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur vs.
Om Prakash Sharma: (2006) 5 SCC 123. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment of Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of Karnal Central Cooperative
Bank Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rohtak & Ors.: 1994 (69)
FLR 1006 wherein in similar facts and circumstances, the
reinstatement order was set aside.
[2024:RJ-JP:5233] (3 of 4) [CW-3229/2000]
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman
submits that the Tribunal had rightly ordered reinstatement as the
respondent-workman was unlawfully retrenched. It is contended
that even if the workman has worked for less than 240 days,
provision of Section 25H of ID Act would still be applicable.
Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has also placed
reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments of Central Bank of
India vs. S. Satyam & Ors.: (1996) 5 SCC 419 and Chief Soil
Conservator Punjab & Ors. vs. Gurmail Singh: 2009 (123)
FLR 496.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned
the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar.
5. The facts of the case are undisputed. The respondent-
workman admittedly worked for less than 240 days. The finding of
the Tribunal that there was no violation of Sections 25G, and 25H
of the ID Act read with Rules 76 and 78 of the ID Rules has also
not been challenged by the respondent-workman. Therefore, the
scope of the present writ petition appears to be limited to the
finding of the Tribunal that because there was a blatant violation
of Rule 77 of the ID Rules, the respondent-workman is eligible to
be reinstated.
6. While considering the violation of Rule 77 of the ID Rules,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBBJ vs. Om Prakash
Sharma (supra), observed as under:
"11. By reason of the said rule, the employer has been
enjoined with a duty to prepare a list of all workmen in the
particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated.
Such a list was not prepared. The consequence of non-
[2024:RJ-JP:5233] (4 of 4) [CW-3229/2000]
maintenance of the said document has been provided in
Rule 79 of the ID Rules, being imposition of penalty. In
case of violation on the part of the management to
comply with the statutory provisions, thus, it could have
been subjected to penalty. Rule 77 may be mandatory in
character as was urged by Mr Calla, but, only because
the appellant herein did not maintain the prescribed
register, the same by itself would not mean that the
respondent herein would be entitled to be reinstated in
service with back wages without establishing that the
provision of Section 25-H was violated. The termination of
the workman was not in issue. In any event, the Labour Court
did not arrive at a finding that the termination of services of
the appellant was illegal. He had not completed 240 days of
service. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not required to
be complied with."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that
violation of Rule 77 of ID Rules cannot result in automatic
reinstatement of workman, without establishing violation of
Section 25-H of the ID Act. Since the impugned finding of the
Tribunal is against the dictum of above quoted Apex Court
judgment, the same cannot be countenanced and is required to be
set aside.
8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.11.1999 is
quashed and set aside.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
