1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 847 of 2001 SECRETARY U.T.I. BHILWARA V/S THE JUDGE LABOUR COURT BHILWARA & ANR. Mr. MS SINGHVI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. JP BHARDWAJ for Mr. USMAN GHANI, for respondent No.2 Date of Order : 24.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MR. A.M. KAPADIA, J.) 1.This special appeal is directed against the order dated 14.09.2001 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3520 of 2001 by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 18.11.2000 (Annex.4 to the petition) passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara, reinstating respondent No.2 workman with backwages, has been dismissed. 2. The respondent workman was serving with the appellant Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara from October 1988. He was removed from service by verbal order on 01.07.1993, therefore, he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Bhilwara vide communication dated 27.07.1995. In the Statement of Claim, respondent No.2 workman alleged that 2 he was appointed on daily wages in October 1988 as Munshi in the Urban Impovement Trust, Bhilwara but by oral order given on 01.07.1993, the Secretary of the Urban Improvement Trust stopped taking work from him. It was stated that he was in continuous services of the Trust from October 1988 till the date of termination i.e. 01.07.1993 for four years and nine months without any interruption. It was further stated that his employment was continuous as per Sec.25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') and thus, he was entitled for protection as provided under the Act of 1947. It was also stated that prior to termination, one month's notice or wages in lieu of notice were not given to the workman nor compensation was paid, hence according to the respondent No.2 workman his termination by the Urban Improvement Trust was contrary to the labour laws. It was further alleged that after termination of the respondent No.2 from service, some other persons were appointed without offering appointment to the respondent No.2 workman. It was therefore prayed that termination of the services of workman by the Urban Improvement Trust be declared illegal and consequently he be reinstated back in service with full back wages as well as provided all consequential benefits. 3. Upon receiving the statement of claim, reply was submitted by the appellant before the Labour Court denying 3 the facts as alleged in the Statement of Claim. In sum and substance, averments were made in the reply that respondent No.2 workman never worked on the post of Munshi with the Urban Improvement Trust. 4. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent workman worked for more that requisite period of 240 days, therefore, passed award in favour of the workman of reinstatement as well as backwages and accordingly appellant was directed to comply with the said award. 5. Aggrieved thereby, writ petition was filed by the appellant which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, giving rise to the instant appeal at the instance of original petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order. 7. On a perusal of impugned order, it is seen that the plea taken by the employer about the workman having worked only for 129 was clearly false as it appeared from the muster rolls produced by the employer before the Labour Court. The workman had moved application before the Labour Court for giving direction to the employer appellant to produce muster rolls for the period from October 1988 to 4 July 1993 but complete muster rolls were not produced inasmuch as muster rolls for the period only from October 1988 to September 1989 were produced and for rest of the period despite second application having been moved they were not produced. On the basis of aforesaid fact situation, Labour Court drawn adverse inference against the employer and came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 workman worked for more than 240 days, therefore termination of the workman was against the labour laws and therefore Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the workman with full backwages. 8. The learned Single Judge on re-appriasal of the evidence, observed that appellant Urban Improvement Trust was not supposed to indulge in this type of false plea before the Labour Court and since the findings of the fact recorded by the Labour Court are not vitiated, learned Single Judge thought it fit not to interfere in the impugned award and accordingly the writ petition has been dismissed. 9. It is settled proposition of law that finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court normally should not be disturbed unless it is based on misappropriation of evidence or order is passed without any evidence on record. In the instant case, we have noticed that the Labour Court after drawing adverse inference against the 5 appellant has passed the impugned order which does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction and therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order. 10. According to us, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order and thereby confirming the order of reinstatement with full backwages passed by the Labour Court. We are in complete agreement with the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 11.This intra-court appeal lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( AM KAPADIA ),J. JPA