{ 1 } S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2249/2006 STATE AND ANOTHER VS. RAJENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER DATE OF ORDER : 04.09.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. G.R. Punia, AAG, for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 06.08.2003 passed by learned Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No.37/2001 The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the appropriate government by notification dated 19.10.2000, referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms “Whether termination of workman Rajendra Singh s/o Shri Amar Singh Solanki (represented by Shri Chandra Shekhar Vyas, Member Executive Marusthal Nal Kamgar Sangh, Jodhpur) by the employer Executive Engineer, City Division, Public Health Engineering Department and Assistant Engineer, City Sub- Division IV, Jodhpur w.e.f. 27.07.93 is just and proper? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled?” As per the statement of claim submitted by the workman, he was initially employed with employer on 01.01.1992 and was posted in Welfare Section of Public { 2 } Health Engineering Department. Up to 14.05.1993 he worked in the Section aforesaid and thereafter his services were utilizsed at Fateh Sagar Hand Pump Chowki up to 31.05.1993. From 01.06.1993 to 27.07.1993 his services were utilized at Head Quarter Chowki, Bheruji Ka Than, Jodhpur. According to the workman from 27.07.1993, he was discontinued from service without adhering provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, held termination of the workman from service retrenchment and that was effected without adhering mandatory condition precedents as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, accordingly a direction was given to the employer to reinstate the workman with 40% of total back wages. While giving challenge to the award impugned, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner – employer is that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman himself stated that his termination was effected from 27.06.1993 and not from 27.07.1993, and if 27.06.1993 was the date of termination, then the workman would have not completed continuous service as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. On consideration the award impugned and other relevant documents placed on record, I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The learned Labour { 3 } Court was aware of the fact that the workman in his statement referred 27.06.1993 as his date of termination from service, however, looking to the fact that 27.07.1993 was mentioned by him in his statement of claim and all other documents, reached at the conclusion that the date i.e. 27.06.1993 was erroneously stated and actual date of termination was 27.07.1993 only. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the date of termination of the workman was 27.06.1993, then too, the workman who was in employment of the petitioner from 01.06.1992, would have completed continuous service as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. In the instant matter, learned Labour Court by proper application of mind, reached at the conclusion that the date 27.07.1993 was the actual date of termination. There is no error with the finding given by the Labour Court, thus, no interference of this Court is desirable. Beside the above, no other argument is advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the award. Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/