1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.770/2002. : : Pradhanadhyapika, Rajkiya Balika Ucha Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Morpa, Kota Vs. Ramswaroop & Anr. : : Date of Order 17.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Akhilesh Pareek for Mr.Mahesh Gupta for the respondent- workman. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed against the award of Labour Court, Kota dated 31.5.2001. The Labour Court by the aforesaid award answered the reference with regard to validity of termination of the respondent-workman on 16.5.1992. Labour Court held that respondent-workman was engaged on part time basis with Government Upper Primary School, Morpa District Kota on 1.3.1990 and continued with them. He has in this manner completed 240 days and he was removed on 16.5.1992. Labour Court held that his removal was made in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes 2 Act and, therefore, declared his removal as illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity and 50% of back wages. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that Labour Court has evidence on record which proved that the respondent in fact was student in the same school and he continued to be student of that school even after 16.5.1992 as his transfer certificate was issued by the school in the year 1993. He was merely assigned the duties of cleaning the school and supplying drinking water and in lieu thereof, paid a sum of Rs.5/- per day from the welfare fund. Learned counsel argued that there was no regular post on which respondent-workman was engaged. Labour Court failed to appreciate all these matters and argued that when there was no sanctioned post against which the direction for reinstatement ought not to have been made now when a period of more than 16 years have gone by. It is therefore, prayed that this writ petition is dismissed. Shri Akhilesh Pareek, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the writ petition and submitted that the award of the Labour Court is based on true and correct appreciation of the evidence and that the 3 respondent-workman clearly proved that he worked with the petitioner school for more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment. This fact was not denied even by Head Master of the school during the proceedings. It was argued that even a part time employee has been held to be a workman in the meaning of Section 2 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has passed just and reasonable award. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material forming part of the record, I find that Labour Court recorded finding that the respondent worked from 1.3.1990 till 15.5.1992 and also taken into consideration the fact that respondent even if is assumed to be working on part time basis, would still be a workman. The Labour Court in that connection relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :1989 (59) FLR, 607 and held that part time employee would fall in the definition of 'workman' and provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would be applicable for part time employee. The Labour Court found that since neither any notice nor notice pay nor even compensation as required by Section 25-F was given to the respondent, his retrenchment was illegal. At the same time, 4 now the emerging facts clearly show that the respondent- workman also could not prove before the Labour Court that he was engaged either on regular basis or engaged on regular post and that Labour Court itself has noticed the fact that he was the student of the same school. In such like situation, if after school hours he was engaged on part time basis on daily wages of Rs.5/-, the direction for reinstatement could not be justified because now more than 16 years have gone by from the date of alleged retrenchment and the school does not have any post to accommodate him. In the facts of the case, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court on the validity of retrenchment of the respondent-workman being illegal, I deem it appropriate to modify award of the Labour Court by directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent-workman Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation in lieu of his reinstatement, which shall be paid to him within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.11.