S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16877/2015. Case: Kehari Singh Vs Divisional Forest Officer, Bharatpur and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
|Case Number:||S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16877/2015|
|Party Name:||Kehari Singh Vs Divisional Forest Officer, Bharatpur and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: J.P. Sharma, Adv.|
|Judges:||Alok Sharma, J.|
|Issue:||Constitution of India - Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10, 25F, 25G, 25H|
|Judgement Date:||February 09, 2017|
|Court:||Rajasthan High Court|
Alok Sharma, J.
This petition has been filed challenging the Labour Court's award dated 7-4-2015 in LCR No. 181/1989 whereby the petitioner workman's allegation of illegal termination on 31-1-1988 and claim for reinstatement was rejected.
The case of the petitioner workman before the Labour Court was that he was initially appointed in Central Nursery Raraha Uncha Gaon and Sheorana from 26-12-1985 and worked upto 31-1-1988 when he was terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'). A dispute raised before the Conciliation Officer having failed and report thereof received, the State Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. A claim for reinstatement was thereupon made in the allegations detailed above.
The department denied the claim of the workman and submitted that the workman was initially engaged as casual daily wager in May, 1986 and worked till July, 1986. Thereafter he himself abandoned the job. The claim of the workman was dismissed on 22-7-1996.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed SBCWP No. 500/1997, which was dismissed on 13-2-2001. DBSAW No. 509/2001 followed and came to be partially allowed on 12-7-2002 with a remand to the Labour Court to consider whether the Forest department was an industry as defined under the Act of 1947 and whether the workman's termination entailed breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947.
The Labour Court on reconsideration of the matter following the remand dismissed the petitioner workman's claim on the ground that he failed to prove his continuous employment with the department for 240 days immediately preceding twelve months to his termination and also that the Forest department was not an industry. Hence this petition.
A perusal of the impugned award indicates that the Labour Court considering the evidence on record has found that the petitioner workman failed to prove his employment with the department for the alleged period from 26-12-1985 to 31-1-1988. In the absence of proof that he had worked for 240 days or more immediately preceding the termination no breach of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 could be found. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the department did not produce the full record. It is well settled that the absence or weakness of defence cannot by itself result in a decree/award. The...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL