Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Intejam Ali Zafri

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6654 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.2004 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 369/2004 in S.B.W.P. No. 921012002. Shrish Kumar Misra and Jayant Mohan for the Appellants. Indra Makwana for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, .i. Heard Mr. Shrish Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Indra Makwana, learned counsel for the respondent-workman. We have perused the records and the order impugned in this appeal. The Labour Court has held that the appellant has worked for 240 days. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is factually incorrect.

The appellant has placed material before us and also before the Labour Court that the workman has worked only for 227 days in about four years as per the following description as contained in para 5 of the reply to the statement of claim:- "December, 1987 4 days January, 1988 27 days February, 1988 25 days March, 1988 27 days March, 1990 23 days April, 1990 23 days May, 1990 20 days July, 1990 18 days August, I 990 18 days December, 199 I 14 days RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVE. CORPN. L m. v. INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l] 535 January, 1992 February, 1992 Total Days 24 days 04 days 227 days" The respondent has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year which is the condition precedent for attracting provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This apart, the workman was a causal house B assistant who never worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year.

As per the provisions of Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there should be working of 240 days in one calendar year. Hence, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in the instant case for the reason that the respondent worked only for 227 days in about C 4 years period from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 28.12. 1987 to the date of termination i.e. 07 .02.1992. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge as also the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a mistake of law in ordering reinstatement with back wages etc. This apart, the order passed by the Division Bench is also non-speaking. As already noticed, it is the settled proposition of law that when the initial appointment itself is void then the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable while terminating the services of the workman.

The respondent-workman has also not placed before the Labour Court the relevant documents and not even summoned the records before the Labour Court. It is seen from the records that neither the Labour Court called E for the records concerned nor the respondent-workman moved an application before the Labour Court for summoning the records. The respondent-workman led no cogent and convincing evidence before the Labour Court. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of reinstatement and back wages passed by the courts below. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs. We make it clear that if any payment is made to the respondent during the pendency of appeal in this Court, the same shall not be recovered. In view of the order now passed, the proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) has become infructuous. S.K.S. Appeal allowed.