IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4164/2000. : : Block Development Officer Vs. Ramkaran. : : Date of Order 10.7.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Mr. M. C. Jain for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by State of Rajasthan challenging the award dated 26.2.1996 passed by learned Labour Court, Jaipur by which removal of respondent- workman vide order dated 20.8.1990 was held to be illegal and petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent-workman in service with continuity and pay to him back wages @ Rs.1000/- per annum. 3. This Court on 2.7.2008 passed an order in the application filed by respondent-workman under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act directing petitioner to pay to respondent last wages drawn from that date onwards and is so far as earlier period was concerned, the application was kept pending. Subsequently, application was allowed in toto vide order dated 4.8.2008 of which petitioner has now made compliance owing to contempt notices issued by this Court in contempt petition filed by respondent-workman. Petitioner has filed application for recalling the order under Section 17-B in which they for the first time brought some new facts, which the respondent-workman was expected to disclose to the Court at the time when the order under Section 17-B was passed. Petitioner has placed on record the copy of statement of claim filed before the Labour Court, Jaipur, which indicates that in compliance of impugned order, the respondent-workman was reinstated in service and thereafter he was again removed on 20.10.1997 and a fresh notification making reference was issued by appropriate Government on 17.3.2007 on the question of validity of his fresh removal. 4. According to learned Additional Government Counsel, once the respondent-workman had been reinstated in service and when thereafter he was again retrenched, the award of Labour Court, which is impugned in the writ petition, stood complied with. Application under Section 17-B supra would not be than maintainable. 5. Shri M. C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent- workman disputed this contention and submitted that when reference was made respondent approached the Payment of Wages Authority for payment of unpaid wages. Reference was erroneously made. Having filed statement of claim and admitting therein the reference of industrial dispute and on that basis prayed for relief to the effect that removal order dated 20.10.1997 be declared illegal and he ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and payment of salary in regular pay scale, respondent workman cannot be allowed to maintain that reference itself was erroneously made. This Court is constrained to observe that petitioner has suffered the order under Section 17-B on account of gross negligence on their part in not bringing the true facts to the notice of the Court. At the same time, however, it must be observed that respondent-workman has also been guilty of making concealment of vital and important facts from the Court. The order under Section 17-B, therefore, was passed in the circumstances narrated above. 6. Had true facts been brought to the notice of the Court and the Court was apprised of the fact that subsequent to the reinstatement pursuant to impugned award, the respondent-workman has been removed again and a fresh reference of industrial dispute was made to Labour Court in which the respondent has filed statement of claim, the order under Section 17-B in all probabilities would not have been passed. 7. Learned Additional Government Counsel has at this stage invited attention of the Court towards bond submitted by respondent-workman before them on 6.1.2008 on a non- gazetted stamp of Rs.10/- undertaking to refund of amount so paid if eventually any order in the matter to this effect is passed by this Court. 6. In the circumstances, the order passed under Section 17-B is liable to be recalled and is hereby recalled. The petitioner would be at liberty to recover the amount so paid from the respondent in accordance with law. 7. Having said so, now I deem it proper to consider the writ petition on merits. The Labour Court has passed the impugned award holding removal of petitioner as illegal and directing his reinstatement in service on the ground that petitioner failed to comply with Section 25-F of the Act and that their version that respondent-workman left the job on his own accord was not accepted by Labour Court. The aforesaid finding was recorded on the basis of appreciation of evidence that was adduced before the Labour Court. The contention has been raised by petitioner that respondent could not be engaged on the post of Assistant Secretary because the eligibility qualification for appointment on that post is Higher Secondary. This contention is contested by the respondent, who says that Higher Secondary is not a requisite qualification, it is only VIII class. This question may not be relevant for deciding the question of compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. I, therefore, do not find any such infirmity or perversity in the award as may warrant interference of this Court. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations and directions. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.9 & 10.