1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.784/2002 Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment : 8.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Arun Bhansali & Mr. Sanjay Nahar, for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Bhaleria for Mr.H.S.Sidhu, for the respondent. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) This is an intra court appeal filed by writ petitioner of W.P. No.2771/2002 under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against an order dated 8.8.2002 passed by Single Judge in W.P. No.2771/2002. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants' writ petition filed against an award of Labour Court. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ thereby justified in upholding the award of Labour Court? 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal and hence, it merits dismissal. 4. The appellant (an employer) filed a writ under Article 2 227 of the Constitution of India out of which this appeal arises seeking to assail an award dated 12.7.2001, passed by Labour Court, Sriganganagar in case no.26/99, whereby the Labour Court was pleased to answer the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short called “The Act”) in favour of respondent by directing his reinstatement in service with award of 30% arrears of backwages. So far as respondent (employee) is concerned, he did not challenge that part of an award which declined to award him backwages to the extent of 70%. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to examine that part of direction in this appeal filed at the instance of petitioner (employer). Indeed it became final before the writ court itself because employee did not file any writ against this part of award. 5. As observed supra, consequent upon the termination of respondent who was working as an employee in their services, an industrial reference under section 10 of the Act was made to Labour Court to decide the legality of his termination order. The parties adduced evidence, It was, however, concluded on facts and evidence by the Labour Court that respondent worked continuously for more than 240 days in one calendar year, that no charge-sheet or any departmental inquiry was held prior to his termination, that no notice as contemplated by Section 25-FF ibid nor any retrenchment compensation was paid by petitioner (employer) to respondent prior to termination. It was therefore, held that it was a case of dismissal without any basis or charge. Accordingly the aforementioned directions were issued against the appellant. This award was challenged by employer (appellant) in writ petition. It was upheld by writ Court by passing the impugned order. It is against this order of writ Court, the employer has filed this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out to us any mistake of law or fact in the impugned order, in so far as the aforementioned findings of facts are concerned. These findings are 3 the only findings which need to be rendered on facts and evidence while answering the reference made by State to Labour Court. Indeed, in order to attract the provisions of Labour Laws, these are the only issues which need to be examined on facts on both sides. As observed supra, if the termination of an employee is based on no charge and when it is not by way of punishment, then it becomes a case of illegal retrenchment when it is proved on facts that an employee has continuously worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year then he is entitled to have the protection of Labour Laws. 7. It is not in dispute that appellant is an industry and subjected to Labour Laws and therefore, an Industrial Reference was validly made to Labour Court for adjudication of termination order under section 10 ibid. It was held on facts that respondent has rendered his services for more than a year continuously with the employer (appellant) and hence, acquired a status to take shelter of Labour Laws. Such finding being findings of fact can not be assailed again on facts in writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was however assailed but rightly upheld by writ Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that respondent did not work continuously for more than 240 days. We find no merit in this submission. Firstly, it is admitted in written statement by the petitioner that respondent has been working in their establishment. Secondly, it is again a question of fact and once it was gone into on facts before the Labour Court against the appellant, then the same can not be gone into in writ jurisdiction like the appellate court much less in intra court appeal arising out of writ petition. Thirdly, even on facts and evidence, this finding is unassailable calling no interference in either writ jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction. 9. In our opinion, therefore, the direction of reinstatement with 30% payment of backwages passed by Labour Court and upheld by writ Court is just, reasonable and legal. The petitioner should 4 reinstate respondent in service if not so far done. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any other plea on facts or in law either before the labour court or before writ court or in this court except what is taken note of supra. In the absence of any factual and legal foundation, it is not possible even otherwise to entertain any other arguments except what was sought to be urged. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. [Dinesh Maheshwari], J. [A.M. Sapre],J. /tarun/