1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3086/2001 State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Shri Deeta and Anr. ......... Date of Order : 22/01/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. R.L.Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for petitioner State. Miss Aruna Negi for the respondent-workman. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer State of Rajasthan has challenged the award Annex.10 dated 08.02.2001 passed by the respondent No.2, the Judge, Indistrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur (for short “the Labour Court” hereinafter). I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 workman. It is contended by learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis and he was paid the wages for the days he worked as daily rated at the rate prescribed by the State Government from time to time. According to learned Additional Advocate General the respondent-workman has not completed 240 2 days in a calendar year and therefore, the Labour Court fell in error in answering the reference made to it. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman supported the award impugned. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the award impugned. The record of the case was requisitioned and the same has been received. I have carefully gone through the record of the Labour Court as well. On a reference being made by the State Govt. by notification dated 10.02.1993 to respondent Labour Court, the Labour Court registered the reference being the Industrial Dispute Case No.36/93. The parties were served with the notices. The respondent-workman Deeta submitted the statement of claim, a reply thereto was filed by the State. The parties led the evidence before the Labour Court and the respondent Labour Court held that the respondent workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year and he has been retrenched without giving him notice or salary in lieu thereof and therefore, the retrenchment was held illegal and invalid. However, instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, the Labour Court granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement amounting to Rs.65,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman submits that in compliance of the Award Annex.10, the 3 respondent-workman has been paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- and the interest thereon amounting to Rs.89,700/- way back in the month of May, 2005. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner- employer. On careful perusal of the award impugned, it appears that the respondent-workman was initially engaged as a Cattle Guard in the year 1981 and he worked upto 1985, however, his services came to be terminated. On a complaint made before the Conciliation Officer, an agreement was entered into between the parties Annex.P-1 and the respondent-workman was taken back in service on 16.1.1988. The respondent-workman continued to work from 16.1.1988 to 16.8.1988. However, by oral order again his services came to be terminated. Thereafter again a compromise was entered into between the parties i.e. employer and the representative of workmen Association and the respondent- workman was again taken back in service on 01.11.1989, however, thereafter again his services said to have been retrenched. The Labour Court considering the period during which the respondent- workman served with the petitioner held that from April 1982 to March 1985, the respondent-workman has continuously worked and in a calendar year he has completed more than 240 days and his services came to be retrenched in March 1990 and by then he has completed requisite period entitling him to protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, however, keeping in 4 view the long gap from the date of retrenchment and the date of award, instead of granting relief of reinstatement, the respondent Labour Court granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement. On close scrutiny of award, in my view, the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court is based on sound and proper appreciation of evidence requiring no interference in the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp