JAIPUR MILK SUPPLY SCHEME JAIPUR Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT RAJASTHAN JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Rajasthan Government Undertaking for supply of milk to the city of Jaipur It is alleged by the petitioner that it is under the Animal Husbandry Department of the Rajasthan Government, though this fact is denied by the non-petitioner No. 2 Manoharkumar, who is the contesting respondent in this case. THE respondent No 2 Manoharkumar was appointed as Van Clerk on temporary basis for period of three months vide Annexure 'a' and his period of service was extended from time to time. He was suspended from service alongwith three other employees by the order dated 26. 7. 1969 (Annexure `f') by the General Manager of the petitioner undertaking on account of a complaint having been received from Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur about adulteration of milk. THEreafter his services were terminated with effect from 31. 10. 1969 vide Annexure 'o' dated 30-9-1969. It appears that after the termination of his services, he was served with a charge sheet on 3. 11. 1969 alongwith a statement of allegations and he submitted his reply on 26 11-1969. It is further alleged by the petitioner that a preliminary enquiry was also held on 20ih September, 1969. However, the respondent No. 2 raised dispute before the Government regarding termination of his services and the Government made a reference to the Labour Court under section 10 (a) (c) read with section 12 (5) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1917 (which will hereinafter be called 'the Act' ). THE Judge, Labour Gout, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by his order dated 12th March, 1973 gave an award in favour of the respondent No. 2 and held that "the termination of Manoharkumar (respondent No 2) from 31 101969 without proper enquiry cannot be said to be proper and legal and the reference is answered in the negative". He farther directed that the respondent No. 2 be reinstated from the date of suspension with full back wages and continuity of service as admissible to him under the certifying standing orders of the industry. A copy of this award has been placed on record and marked Annexure 'y' (at page 62 of the paper book ). By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Labour Court (Annexure 'y') on the following grounds: - (1) That there are on averments of vindictiveness, unfair labour practices or mala fides against the employer: (2) That the respondent No, 2 was a temporary employee and therefor no just exception can be taken to the termination of his services simpliciter: (3) That the employee lost the con6dence of the management and, therefore, the employer cannot be compelled to take him back in service: (4) That the employee was a temporary Government servant a in regular cadre governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules and consequently his services could be terminated by one month's notice or payment of one month's salary under Rule 23 (a) of the R. S. R.

(2.) HERE, it may be relevant to state that after the filation of the Writ application, the petitioner took hack the employee (respondent No. 2) into service by an order dated 2nd July, 1973, a copy of which has been placed on record by the employee himself and marked Exhibit R/2 In this order it is specifically mentioned in para 3 that the employee has voluntarily foregone his wages for the period from the date of suspension to the date of his joining duty which had been awarded to him by the impugned award Annexure 'y'. In light of this subsequent development, an argument has also been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the employee cannot now claim wages for the period from the date of suspension to the date of his being taken on duty again in accordance with the impugned award.

(3.) IN S. P. Vasudeva vs. State of Haryana (4) their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe that it would be better for all concerned to lay down that the reversion of a probationer from a higher to a lower post, or the discharge of a probationer or the discharge from service of a temporary servant cannot be questioned except on the basis of mala fides in the making of the order.