1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5327/1999. : : Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Anta Vs. Uchchhva Lal & Anr. : : Date of Order 10.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Goyal for the respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the award dated 26.4.1999 by which Labour Court held that removal of respondent-workman by petitioner was illegal being violative of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and directed petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity and full back wages. 3. This Court by its order dated 14.2.2001 rejected the plea of petitioner against reinstatement of respondent and directed for his reinstatement with continuity. However, the writ petition was entertained only on the question of back wages. 2 4. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the alleged removal was made on 1.7.1992 whereas reference of industrial dispute was made to Labour Court by Government vide notice dated 2.8.1995 and the award was passed still four years thereafter on 26.4.1999. The respondent-workman was not able to show that for all these delay the petitioner-management would be responsible and that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. 5. Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the writ petition and submitted that the matter has remained pending before the Court, initially with appropriate Government and thereafter the Labour Court. The respondent-workman was denied back wages for that period. There is no case for interference particularly when his termination has been held to be illegal and he has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that even though respondent was a part time workman, but in view of law laid 3 down in the number of judgments, the Labour Court held him to be a workman and also held action of petitioner- management is unfair labour practice. But then the writ petition on that aspect of the matter has been dismissed. Now after lapse of so much time, direction for payment of back wages to respondent-workman cannot be justified. The writ petition therefore deserves to be partly allowed to the extent. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The award of Labour Court dated 26.4.1999 shall accordingly stand modified. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that even after dismissal by this Court on 14.2.2001 to the extent that the Labour Court declared removal of respondent as illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity, petitioner has so far not complied with that part of direction. In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to implement the award dated 26.4.1999 within a period of three months from the date copy of this order produced before them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.60.