1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4220/1996 (State & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal & Anr.) Date of order : 07.01.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv. for the State. Mr. Vijay Mehta, for the respondent-workman. By way of filing the present writ petition, the State has challenged the award dated 22.4.1996 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby he has passed an award for reinstatement of the workman – respondent No.1 and ordered that he may be paid 50% back wages from the date of reference to the date of his reinstatement. This writ petition was admitted by this Court on 01.08.1997 and vide order dated 20.8.1997, it was directed that the petitioner may comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter vide order dated 23.2.1999, the operation of the award impugned so far as back wages is concerned was stayed and further it was ordered 2 that if the respondent workman has not been taken back in service, he may be taken in service forthwith. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the workman – respondent No.1 stated at Br while showing photostat copy of the order dated 21.9.2004 that the petitioner Department has regularized the services of the respondent workman on the post of 'Beldar' w.e.f. 1.6.1994. Further, it is submitted that the finding of Judge, Labour Court is based on cogent evidence and the workman respondent No.1 was initially appointed as helper and his services were dispensed with without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate does not dispute this fact that the workman - respondent No.1 has already been regularized on the post of 'Beldar' but submit that the award passed by Judge, Labour Court with regard to granting back-wages to the workman may be set aside. I have perused the impugned award so also considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, the Judge, Labour Court has not committed any error while setting aside the retrenchment of the services of workman respondent No.1 and has rightly passed the award for reinstatement. Therefore, no interference is required 3 with the award passed by Judge, Labour Court so far as relates to reinstatement of the workman – respondent No.1. However, I deem it just and proper to set aside the order of granting back wages on the ground that from the date of reference to the date of award, the respondent-workman did not actually worked in the department. In the above facts and circumstances of the case so also upon the fact that the services of the workman respondent No.1 has already been regularized by the State, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by Judge, Labour Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed to the extent of reinstatement of workman respondent No.1. However, the award passed by Judge, Labour Court for payment of back-wages from the date of reference to the date of award is set aside. However, the petitioner will be entitled for all other benefits including seniority and other benefits. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun