1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4138/2004. Senior Divisional Engineer (Legal), O/o the TDM, Bikaner Vs. Gopal Dass and Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 09.02.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. M.S. Godara, for the petitioner/s Mr. H.S. Shrimali, for the respondent/s By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 30.7.2003 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in Industrial case No. CGIT-22/2001 titled as The General Secretary, Railway Casual Labour Union V/s Sr. Divisional Engineer (Legal). In brief, the facts of the case are that the appropriate government referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in terms as to "whether the action of the management of gmtd, Telecom Department, Bikaner in terminating the services of Shri Gopaldas Ojha w.e.f. 13.3.97 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled?" The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed six issues as follows :- "(i)- Whether the workman was appointed on 17.6.1993 to the post of Daily wager, sanctioned by the Central Government, in the 2 office of the non-applicant no.4? BOA (ii)- Whether the workman has continuosly worked on the said post from 17.6.1993 to 13.3.1997? BOA (iii)- Whether the services of the workman have been terminated without giving him the legal notice? BOA (iv)- Whether after the termination of the services of the workman, Sh. Bhikharam Swamy, a junior employee to him has been appointed by the non-applicants? BOA (v)- Whether the services of the workman have been terminated in violation of Sections 25-F, 24-F, 25-H and Rule 77 of the Industrial Development Act, 1947? BOA (vi)- To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled for?" While examining the issue No.2, a specific finding of fact is given by the Labour court that the workman remained in service of the employer from 17.6.1993 to 13.3.1997. The finding of fact is further given to the effect that the retrenchment of the workman was made in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Tribunal accordingly answered the reference with a direction to the employer to reinstate the workman in service with 50% of the backwages with continunity in service. While giving challenge to the award impugned, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner-employer that the finding given by the Labour Court is perverse being not 3 supported by any evidence. I do not find any force in the contention so raised. Learned Labour Court while passing the award impugned has taken into consideration the evidence produced by the workman specially the document Ex.W-1 and reached at the conclusion that the workman was in the employment of the petitioner-employer upto 13.3.1997. The discussion of the evidence available on record is manifest in paras no. 14,15,16 and 17 of the award impugned. The finding of fact given by the Labour Court based on sound appreciation of evidence available does not warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. rm/