1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.724/2007 State of Rajasthan v. Sardar Singh & Anr. Date of Order :: 7th November, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mrs. R.R.Kanwar, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Saluja, for the respondents. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dated 3.8.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner in Industrial Dispute No.37/1998. The award aforesaid acquired finality on its publication by the appropriate government as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) vide notification dated 19.2.2002. Learned Labour Court by the award impugned held that the termination of workman Sardar Singh w.e.f. 1.12.1995 was illegal being in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Accordingly, the workman was declared entitled for reinstatement in service with compensation in a tune of Rs.2500/-. To challenge the award dated 3.8.2001 notified under the notification dated 19.2.2002, this petition for writ was filed on 4.8.2006. No explanation for causing a delay of about five years is given by the petitioner in entire petition for writ. This Court by order dated 2.1.2008, 2 while examining an application preferred under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 preferred by the respondent workman, found the petition for writ highly belated and also found the petitioner guilty for concealment of the material facts. By the same order an opportunity was also given to the petitioner to file additional affidavit to explain the questions involved and likely to arise in the matter relating to the issues referred above. No explanation in pursuant thereto has been filed. The order dated 2.1.2008 speaks in volume regarding conduct of the petitioner and also relating to delay in filing the petition for writ. I have also examined the award impugned on merits. As per counsel for the petitioner the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman was working on daily rate basis and, therefore, there was no need to adhere the provisions of the Act of 1947 while effecting retrenchment. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The mode of payment is nothing to do with regard to adherence of mandatory condition precedents for a valid retrenchment. Learned Labour Court on basis of the available evidence gave a specific finding that the workman was in employment of the employer for a period of more than one year and as such was in continuous service as defined under 3 Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 and he was retrenched from service without adhering mandatory condition precedents to do so. The award impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition for writ is having no merit. The same, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.