1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3599/1997 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sumer Singh & Anr.) ......... Date of Order : 06/01/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. N.K.Mehta, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Mathur, for the respondent-workman. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner State of Rajasthan has challenged the award Annex.3 dated 05.04.1997 passed by the respondent No.2, Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the Labour Court' hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent No.1 workman approached to the State Government for referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. By a communication dated 24th December, 1992, the State Government referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. On registration of 2 the reference, the parties were served with the notice and a statement of claim was filed by the respondent-workman and reply thereto was also filed by the petitioner-employer. The parties led their evidence before the Labour Court and on appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court adjudicated and answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman holding therein that the termination of services of the respondent-workman by the petitioner-employer w.e.f. 18.02.1990 was illegal and improper and therefore, the retrenchment of the respondent-workman was held to be invalid and the Labour Court directed to reinstate the respondent- workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 24th December, 1992. The instant writ petition was filed in the year 1997, however, there has not been any interim order staying the operation of the award and in pursuance of the award the respondent-workman has joined the duties and has been reinstated in service. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-workman was engaged on muster-roll and therefore was not entitled for the protection of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act' hereinafter). According to the petitioner, the respondent- workman has not completed 240 days in a calendar year and has only worked for 202 days in the preceding year. 3 From the perusal of the award and the material on record including the evidence produced by the parties before the Labour Court, it is clear that the respondent-workman was initially engaged as daily rated labour by the Superintending Engineer, Lift Canal, Division-I, Jodhpur on 27.02.1988 and he joined the duties on 22.03.1988. His services came to be terminated by oral order on 18.02.1990 and thus, according to the respondent-workman, from February, 1988 till 1990 he has worked with the petitioner and has completed 240 days in a calendar year before his termination. This fact has been established by evidence as has been held by learned Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the termination of service amounts to retrenchment of the respondent-workman as defined in Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act, in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act. In my view, the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be said to have suffered from any error. On the contrary, the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court is based on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties before the Labour Court. The respondent-workman vide Annex.R/2 has already submitted his joining since there had not been any interim stay against the impugned award and has been paid regularly the wages last drawn by him. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the 4 award impugned warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 2951/97 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3599/97 Date of Order : 06/01/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. N.K.Mehta, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Mathur, for the respondent-workman. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp