1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.178/2010 Om Prakash Vs. The Director, Central State Farm, Jaitsar Date of Judgment : 2.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.S.Choudhary, for the appellant. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.1090/2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, against an order dated 8.2.2010 passed by Single Judge in W.P. No.1090/2010. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition. So the short question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition of appellant? 3. This is what was held by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's referred dispute was decided by the Labour Court vide award dated 17.4.2009 wherein it is held 2 that though the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calendar year but at the same time, it has been held that as per Standing Order 12, he was working on a non- sanctioned post and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in AIR 2006 Hon'ble Apex Court 1806, he is not entitled to reinstatement and thereafter, the Labour Court held that the petitioner shall be entitled to one month's salary plus 15 days' other benefit with interest at a rate of 7.5% from 21.10.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner was given appointment against a non- sanctioned post but since the project is working, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar is contrary to law. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the finding of fact that the project has been closed and appointment has been given against the non-sanctioned post, therefore, the petitioner could not have been granted the relief more than what has been granted by the learned Labour Court. In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.” 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. In our view, the Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. 5. It is a case, where appellant was awarded retrenchment compensation by the labour Court on the ground that since the project of State, in which he was employed prior to his termination, has come to an end and secondly, the appellant was employed against non- sanctioned post in the said project and hence on these two grounds, the labour Court instead of granting a relief of reinstatement in service 3 awarded retrenchment compensation as provided by Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. 6. In our view, the reasoning of labour Court which found favour with the writ court while upholding the award of labour Court cannot be faulted with. It is in fact based on law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi. In other words, when a relief of reinstatement was not possible on the facts found, then a direction to award retrenchment compensation was just, proper and equitable. The appellant should feel satisfied with what has been awarded to him by labour Court. 7. Learned counsel for appellant was not able to show by placing reliance on any evidence that project in question in which he was worked was not closed or that his employment was not temporary in nature in the project by the State and it was against a clear vacancy in sanctioned post. In the absence of any evidence adduced by employee to prove these facts, the finding of fact recorded by labour Court in reference and upheld by writ court in the impugned order cannot be disturbed. It is accordingly upheld being in accordance with law. 8. As a consequence of foregoing discussion, the intra court appeal filed by writ petitioner of W.P. No.1090/2010 fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. [Dinesh Maheshwari], J. [A.M. Sapre],J. /tarun/