S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1504/2009 The State of Rajasthan & anr.v. Harchandram & ors. Date of order : 02.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR, J. Mr. V.K.Mathur, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the petitioners. By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the employer State of Rajasthan has challenged the award dated 4th October, 2006 passed by the respondent Labour Court, Bikaner (for short 'the Labour Court') whereby a reference made to it by notification dated July 31, 1996 for adjudication came to be adjudicated and the Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the workmen illegal in respect of the workmen mentioned therein, i.e. as many as six persons who were represented through the respondent Association and therefore, directed to reinstate those six workmen. However, instead of awarding back wages a compensation of Rs. 2500/- to each of the workman was awarded in their favour. I have heard learned Additional Government Counsel and have carefully gone through the award of the Labour Court. The respondents workmen came to be engaged as daily rated worker from the date mentioned against their names as under : 1. Harchand Ram 1.4.1993 2. Bhagwana Ram 1.4.1993 3. Narain Singh 15.1.1993 4. Dungar Singh 1.2.1993 5. Ganpat Ram 1.5.1993 6. Raj Kumar 1.4.1993 However, their services came to be terminated by order dated 23.11.1994 and from evidence produced before the Labour Court it is established that they have completed more than 240 days in a calendar year and admittedly the services came to be terminated without giving notice or paying one month's salary in lieu thereof and thus there is violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even the witnesses produced by the employer petitioners admitted that two of the employees who were engaged with the respondents i.e. Raj Kumar and Hemant Kumar are still working and their services have not been terminated. It has also been admitted that neither notice nor compensation in lieu thereof was paid before terminating their services. In my view, the finding of fact arrived at by the respondent Labour Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. The stay application also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. Smathur/