ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHANversusRAM CHARAN

A                   ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN
                                         v.
                                 RAM CHARAN

                                  MAY 19, 2006

B    [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 ofHigh 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
    appeal.

         Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
          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
in service with 25% back-wages, without even adverting to the grounds
                                                                                B
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)
                                                                                D
     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
                                                                                E

    Ajay Chaudhary, Nimish Gupta, Ashish Thakur and Chetan Gupta
Advs., for the ·Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                F
     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.

     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
    786                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.


A   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 under the
B   appellant as per the muster roll produced before the Labour Court.

          The respondent filed an application dated 29.6.1986 before the
    Conciliation Officer alleging that he was terminated from service w.e.f.
    1.11.1985 without any notice. The appellant filed a reply to the said
c   application controverting the said allegation by producing the muster roll of
    the respondent which established the respondent having rendered only I 97
    days of service with the appellant. The Conciliation Officer vide order dated
    29.5.1986 rejected the application of the respondent on the basis of m<1ster
    roll, prodL.ced by the appellant, from July to December, 1984 and May and
    June, 1985, establishing total number of 197 days of work by the respondent.
D
          The respondent challenged the said order of the Conciliation Officer
    before the High Court, in Writ Petition No. 2988 of 1988, seeking his
    reinstatement in service with the appellant. The High Court vide its order
    dated 21 I. I992 dismissed the said writ petition of the respondent.
E   Thereafter, the respondent again moved an application before the Conciliation
    Officer whereupon the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report of
    conciliation to the Government of Rajasthan, which lead to reference of
    industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference made
    to the Labour Court is reproduced herein :
F
             "Whether service of the Claimant Ram Charan as a Pump Driver
             terminated from I.I LI 985 by the Asstt. Engineer, PHED, Sub-
             Division, Mahua, Sawai Madhopur, is legal and justified? It no,
             what relief the Claimant is entitled for?"

G         Thereafter, in pursuance of the notice by the Labour Court, Bharatpur,
    the respondent filed a Statement of Claim alleging that he had worked under
    the appellant from 14.7.1984 to LI l.1985, however, his service was
    terminated from 1.11 .1985 without giving one month's notice or salary in
    lieu of notice. compt:nsation in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial
H   Disputes Act, 194 7 ("the Act" for short). The respondent also alleged
  ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN v. RAM CHARAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 787

violation of Sections 25(G) and (H) of the Act thereby terminating his           A
services on the basis of having rendered service for more than 240 days in
a year.

      The appellant filed a reply to the Statement of Claim of the respondent
denying the said allegations and pointing out the rejectiOn of the application
by the Conciliation Officer, vide order dated 19.5.1988, on the basis of false
                                                                                 B
assertion of the respondent of having worked for more than 240 days in year
contrary to the actual 197 days of work rendered by him.

      The Labour Court vide its order dated 16.12.1999 made an award in
favour of the respondent and against the appellant, finding that there was       c
violation of Section 25(F) of the Act and declaring the termination of the
respondent as illegal and unjustified and that the respondent was entitled for
reinstatement with continuity in service, with 25% back-wages. The Labour
Court, however, did not find violation of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the
Act.
                                                                                 D
      Aggrieved by the Award dated 16.12.1999 of the Labour Court, the
appellant filed writ petition, being Civil Writ Petition No. 26112001, before
the High Court of Rajasthan on the ground that the presumption made by
the Labour Court regarding 240 days of work rendered by the respondent
was contrary to the material on record establishing 197 days work                E
rendered by the respondent. More so, when the respondent did not
produce the termination order, his writ petition was dismissed by this Court
vide order dated 21.11.1992. Hence, it was argued that there was no violation
of Section 25(F) and as such the Award dated 16.12.1999 was liable to be
set aside.
                                                                                 F
      The learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 20.3.2003,
dismissed the writ petition finding no merit therein. The High Court while
rejecting the writ petition held that the presumption made by the Labour
Court in respect of 240 days work rendered by the respondent was correct
on the basis of the evidence adduced before the said Court. Aggrieved by         G
the dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the appellant filed a writ petition, being D.B. Special Civil Appeal
No. 85/2004, before the Division Bench of the High Court, along with an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of
delay of 321 days.                                                               H
    788                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         The Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated
    28.1.2004 dismissed the said Special Civil Appeal No. 85/2004 on the
    ground of delay, being barred by 321 days. The High Court also observed
    that there was no merit in the said Special Civil Appeal and held that the
    Labour Court was right in directing reinstatement of the respondent with
    25% back-wages. We have heard the arguments of the counsel appearing on
B   either sides and also perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge
    as also the Division Bench of the High Court.

          The learned Judges of the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the
    ground of !aches in approaching the High Court by 321 days. However, the
c   High Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no merit
    therein. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High
    Court, goes to show that there is absolutely no discussion about the merit
    of the rival contentions made by the parties. The Division Bench, in our view,
    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, in
D
    our view, 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 to the respondent 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
E   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.

          On 11.20.2004, this Court after issuing notice to the respondent, stayed
F   the operation of the Award until further orders. On 13.12.2004, this Court
    while granting leave, passed a further order by way of modification of its
    order dated 11.10.2004, and directed that the appellant may reinstate the
    respondent but the recovery of back-wages pursuant to the impugned Award
    shall remain stayed during the hearing of the appeal. Since the order of the
    Division Bench is not a speaking one, we set aside the same and remit the
G   matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal and passing
    a speaking order after hearing the respective parties. We, therefore, restore
    the D.B. Special Civil Appeal No. 85 to the file of the High Court and request
    the Division Bench to dispose of the same afresh on merit and in accordance
    with law, without being influenced by any of the observation made by us
H   in this judgment.
  ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN v. RAM CHARAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 789

     Till the disposal of the D.B. Special Civil Appeal No. 85, 2004 by         A
the High Court, the interim order dated 13.12.2004 passed by this Court,
ordering reinstatement of the respondent and staying the recovery o the back-
wages shall remain in force.

     The original .record, if any, received from the High Court shall be sent
back to it along with a copy of this order.
                                                                                B

     The appeal is allowed. No costs.

B.B.B.                                                      Appeal allowed.