ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN versus RAM CHARAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 19-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN 
v. 
RAM CHARAN 
MAY 19, 2006 
[DR. AR LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Industrial Di:,putes Act, 1947- -Section 2 5F - Termination ofworkman-
Labour Court holding violation of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 
directed his re-instatement with 25% backwages Writ petition flied by 
C 
employer dismissed by Single Judge of High Court- --Division Bench dismissed 
further appeal on merit without discussing merits of the rival claims as also 
on ground of !aches in approaching the Court- £'hallenge to--- Held: Order 
passed by Division Bench being a non-:,peaking one is not sustainable-
Hence, matter remiued back tu Division Bench Labour Laws. 
D 
Respondent-workman was terminated from service. Labour Court 
held that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 and declaring the termination of Respondent as illegal 
directed his reinstatement with continuity of service with 25% backwages. 
Challenging the award, Appellant-employer filed Writ Petition before 
E 
High Court on the ground that the presumption made by the Labour 
Court regarding 240 days work rendered by Respondent was contrary 
to the material on record, hence, there was no violation of Section 25F 
and as such the award passed by Labour Court was liable to be set aside. 
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ petition. Aggrieved, 
F 
appellant filed special civil appeal before the Division Bench. The special 
civil appeal was dismissed on merit as also on ground of !aches in 
approaching the Court with a delay of 321 days. Hence the present 
G 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground 
of laches in approaching the High Court after 321 days. However, the 
High Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that th~re was no 
merit therein. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of 
H 
the High Court, goes to show that there is absolutely no discussion 
784 
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN v. RAM CHARAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 785 
about the merit of the rival contentions made by the parties. The 
A 
Division Bench is not justified in dismissing the appeal on merit 
without having discussed the merits of the rival claims. The order 
passed by the Division Bench is not sustainable as it is not a speaking 
order. The High Court also dismissed the appeal by holding that the 
Labour Court was right in directing the reinstatement of the respondent 
B 
in service with 25% back-wages, without even adverting to the grounds 
raised in the appeal challenging the said direction. Likewise, the 
Division Bench is also not correct in affirming the presumption made 
by the Labour Court regarding 240 days of service rendered by the 
respondent, without adverting to the material placed before it by the 
parties. (788-C-E) 
C 
2. Since the order of the Division Bench is not a speaking one, it is 
set aside and the matter remitted back to the Division Bench of the High 
Court for fresh disposal and for passing a speaking order after hearing 
the respective parties. (788-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8124 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2004 of the High Court of 
Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 85/2004. 
Ms. Madhurima Tatia, A. Aruneshwar Gupta, Advs., for the Appellant 
Ajay Chaudhary, Nimish Gupta, Ashish Thakur and Chetan Gupta 
Advs., for the ·Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Heard Ms. Madhurima Tatia, learned 
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ajay Choudhary, 
learned counsel for the respondent. 
D 
E 
F 
This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 
G 
28.1.2004 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil 
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 85/2004, dismissing the appeal filed by the 
appellant herein. 
The respondent was appointed initially on muster roll as a Pump 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Driver, on temporary basis, with the appellant, According to the appellant, 
the respondent had worked upto 12.12.1984 from his initial date of 
employment and also worked in the month of May and June, 1985 for 21 
days and 26 days respectively, under the appellant. The respondent left the 
service from 1.11.1985 without infonning the appellant. As such the 
respondent has rendered a total number of 197 day of service u

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.