1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL No.559/1999 CHETAN PRAKASH GAUTAM V. RESIDENT ENGINEER & Ors and D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No.963/2000 RESIDENT ENGINEER V/S CHETAN PRAKASH GAUTAM & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT :: MARCH 12, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Suresh Kashyap, for appellants. Dr. P.C. Jain, for respondents. BY THE COURT : (ORAL) Challenge in these appeals is to the order dated March 9, 1999 of the learned Single Judge whereby interference was made in the award dated July 14, 1994 of the Labour Court and it was held that the workman shall be entitled for reinstatement on daily wages basis in any of the units of the corporation where the work is available from the date of order. It was further held that the appointment shall be treated afresh and the workman shall be entitled for salary on daily 2 wages from the date of order. The workman was directed to be reinstated within 15 days. We have heard the rival submissions. Labour Court in the award dated July 14, 1994 directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of services but he was found entitled only to 50% of back wages. The grievance of the workman is that his appointment could not be held as fresh appointment and he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of services. Per contra, the appeal filed by the corporation is based on the ground that since the workman himself left the services, he was not entitled to any relief. Having scanned the material on record, we notice that after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court held that the workman had completed 240 days in a calender year and 3 he was entitled to be reinstated in service since the provisions contained u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were flouted. In our opinion, the finding of the learned Single Judge in giving fresh appointment to the workman cannot be sustained. While exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge could not have reweighed the evidence adduced before the Labour Court. Since the corporation was ready and willing to take the workman back in service and the workman himself declined to join the service, in our opinion, the workman was not entitled to back wages. For these reasons, we dispose of the instant appeals in the following terms : (1) The corporation shall reinstate the services of the appellant with continuity of service within 15 days from today. The workman shall appear before the corporation at 4 its Sawaimadhopur office on March 24, 2008. On that date, the corporation shall hand over the order of reinstatement to the workman. (2) The impugned order of the learned Single Judge stands modified as indicated above. No order as to costs. (Guman Singh), J. (Shiv Kumar Sharma),J. Chauhan/