1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2976/2006 State of Raj Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Ors. Date of Order :: 29.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy. Govt. Counsel. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, for the respondent-workman. ... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dated 24.1.2005 passed by the labour court, Bhilwara, whereby the labour court declared retrenchment of the workmen illegal and directed the employer for their reinstatement with 50% of the back-wages. While assailing validity of the award aforesaid the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the workmen were employed through the Contractor and not by the Department, as such, there was no relationship of master and servant. I have examined the award impugned. The workmen in their cross-examination specifically stated that they were receiving wages from the Assistant Engineer of the Department. The Junior Engineer of the Department also stated in his affidavit that the workmen were working with the department for about 3-4 years and they were supplied to the department through M/s Sharp Security/ Reliance Security/ Pandey Sharp Security Services. On basis of the available facts learned labour court reached at the conclusion that the respondents-workmen were in employment of the petitioner-employer for more than a year and their services were retrenched without adhering the mandatory conditions precedent for a valid retrenchment. So far as the relationship of master and servant is concerned in the instant matter it 2 is pertinent to note that as per definition of workman given in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Rajasthan Amendment) the workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied and that includes even the workman employed through a contractor. As such, simply on the count that the respondents-workmen were supplied to the employer for rendering services through a contractor the relationship of master and servant can not be denied. The award impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '