LexHARYANA LAND RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus NIRMAL KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ HARYANA LAND RECLAMATION AND A -)- DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. NIRMAL KUMAR DECEMBER 10, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 - r. 77 - Retrenchment - Industrial dispute raised after about 6 years - Labour court holding that retrenchment was in violation of the rule c - Direction for reinstatement and 50% backwages - Award confirmed by Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court - On appeal, held: In view of the fact that the employer was suffering from huge losses, back wages restricted to Rs. I 0, 0001- - D Consideration of delay in seeking reference of Industrial Dispute, -f to depend on facts of each case - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ~ s. l 0 - Delay. ' Respondent- workman filed a claim petition alleging that his services were retrenched illegally. Labour court held that the E retrenchment was in violation of Rule 77 ofRajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. It directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% backwages, from the date of reference. Writ Petition against the Award was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. A Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single Judge. F In appeal to this Court, appellant-management contended that the retrenchment was effected due to financial losses and that there was delay in raising the dispute. Disposing of the :<vpeal, the Court G HELD: 1. So far as delay in seeking the reference is 'f concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down, it would depend on facts of each individual case. [Para 6) [3-G] H • 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R. A Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P Madhavankutty 2002 (2) SCC _.,,. 455; S.M Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager 2003 (4) SCC 27 and Asstt. Engineer, CAD v. Dhan Kunwar (2006) 5 SCC 481 - referred to. B 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant- management was suffering from huge losses from 1990 onwards. In fact, this aspect has been referred to by the Labour Court and has been accepted. Considering the facts, back wages is restricted to Rs.10,000/-. [Paras 10 and 11] (5-H, 6-A] c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3961 of2006 From the Judgment & Order dated 22. 7 .2003 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 762 of D 2000. Ravikesh K. Sinha, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and T. Mahipal for \.-- the Appellant. ·~ Satbir Singh Pillania, Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Dhananjaya KurnarTyagi E and Anil Karnwal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, F dismissing the Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Ordinance 1949. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: G The respondent-workman filed a claim petition and sought a reference of the dispute raised by him to the Labour Court. The appropriate Government referred to the dispute for adjudication to the ,,, Labour Court, Hanumangarh. In the claim petition the respondent- workman alleged that he was employed by the appellant as watchman- H cum-peon and his services were retrenched by the appellant illegally on ' ) HARYANALANDRECLAMATION &DEV. CORP. LTD. 3 v. NIRMALKUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 18. 7 .1991. The Labour Court after giving an opportunity to the appellant A to discuss his claim and on consideration of evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the services of the respondent-workman was retrenched in violation of Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (in short the 'Rules'). The Labour Court also found that the reason for retrenchment as advanced by the appellant, that some amount B was embezzled by the respondent-workman. was not established by the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, filed a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21.7.2000 as the learned Single Judge did not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour C Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was appointed on a daily-wage basis on 15.8.1988 and was retrenched on 18. 7 .1991 due to financial losses. This position is accepted. D Respondent raised a hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.