1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4360/95 Chief Engineer, Irrigation vs. Nihal Singh & Anr. Date of order : 2/4/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashi Sharma for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 15.6.1994 by which the reference made on the question of termination of respondent workman was answered in the terms that action of the petitioner in terminating his service is illegal and that he would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Labour Court has erred in overlooking the factor that the respondent-workman was offered compensation notice in cash and the same was refused by him and it was thereafter that the same amount was sent by money order. The 2 affidavit of the Assistant Engineer Rambabu Agrawal was not considered in true perspective. The respondent-workman was merely entitled for reinstatement compensation for 45 days and notice pay of 38 days which amounts were respectively given. The retrenchment compensation would come to Rs.616/-, notice pay Rs.364/- and salary or the month of November, 1998 of Rs.384/-, thus totalling to Rs.1,344/-. There was therefore no violation of Section 25G of the I.D. Act. Shri Shashi Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that already in compliance of the award, the respondent has been reinstated in service and he has been continuously working with the petitioners ever since. It was contended that the Labour Court has passed just and reasoned award based on the evidence led by the parties and then came to the conclusion that the compensation and the notice pay represented only wages of 26 days and not 30 days. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, 3 I find that the Labour Court has in the context of compliance of Section 25-F has in clear and great details discussed the evidence of parties and has held that according to Section 25-F(a) & (b), not only the notice pay of 30 days was required to be given but the workman was entitled to compensation for each of the completed year at the rate of 15 days wages. The respondent has completed more than three years service and thus he was entitled to be paid compensation for 45 days and not just for 38 days. Besides that the Labour Court held that the wages that was paid as notice pay and calculation of the compensation that was made was for 27 days and not for wages of 30 days. In do not find any infirmity in the approach taken by the Labour Court. The respondent workman has already been reinstated pursuant to the award but keeping in view the fact that part of the back wages has remained stayed and that the part of the direction by which 50% wages on one hand was required to be paid to the respondents was stayed and that the retrenchment was made on 4 1.11.1998 for which a reference was made on 23.8.1990 and the award was passed on 15.6.1990, the part of the award directing 50% of the back wages, is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. The petitioner however would be entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits flowing from such continuity. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/