CWP 2444/03 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2444/2003 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Versus Mohanlal & Anr. Date of Order ::: 15/09/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mukesh K.Verma, for petitioner Mr. Lokesh Sharma for respondent-workman Instant petition has been filed by Corporation assailing Award dt.08/01/02 (Ann.3) whereby Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR-1692/98 while setting aside termination of workman (respondent herein) w.e.f.14/09/89, directed petitioner Corporation to reinstate the workman with continuity in service with 50% back wages. As alleged in statement of claim, respondent (workman) was initially appointed on daily wages on 26/06/85 and continuously worked from 26/06/85 to 14/09/89 when his services were terminated without assigning reasons; a Reference was made by appropriate Government, and after adjudication, in para 12, learned Labour Court recorded a finding that respondent workman had worked from 26/06/85 to 14/09/89 – against which there was no contrary material on record except that he was temporarily appointed on daily wages – taking note whereof, it was concluded that since the workman had worked more than 240 days CWP 2444/03 //2// in preceding 12 months of his termination, and there was violation of S.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; consequently, he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service. As regards back wages, since the workman in his statement of claim, so also in affidavit para 10 specifically deposed that he remained unemployed as a result of his termination impugned and there was no source of income during intervening period and since no contrary material was placed on record, in the facts of the case, Labour Court considered it proper to grant 50% back wages to respondent workman apart from reinstatement with continuity in service vide Award impugned. Counsel for petitioner (Corporation) submits that after Reference was made by appropriate Government, notice was sent to respondent workman but despite service, he never turned up; as such no claim Award was passed on 22/10/91 but on filing of application by workman, no claim Award was re-called on 24/02/92 without affording opportunity to the petitioner. Counsel submits that respondent workman was appointed purely on daily wages basis and vide order dt.14/06/89 (Ann.1) he was appointed on contract basis for fixed period and on its expiry, his services were terminated; as such they were not under obligation to comply with provisions of the CWP 2444/03 //3// Act, 1947. Learned Labour court after adjudication of dispute and taking note of material on record, recorded a finding of fact about working of respondent workman from 26/06/85 to 14/09/89 and certainly for the period of services rendered by him, he had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months of his termination and the petitioner was under obligation to comply with S.25-F of the Act, 1947. The finding recorded by Labour Court based on material on record, this Court finds no manifest error or infirmity warranting interference therein. As regards back wages, respondent workman has specifically averred not only in statement of claim but also in his statement/ affidavit recorded during adjudication of Reference, about the fact that he remained unemployed as a result of impugned termination – against which no contrary material has been placed on record, in the opinion of this Court, learned Labour Court has exercised its judicious discretion in granting 50% back wages in the facts of instant case, which does not call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/2444CW03-1509-ID.doc