CW 928/2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.928/2001 State of Raj. Versus Labour Court & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 18/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.G.A., for petitioner Mr. Ganesh Meena, for respondent-workman *** Instant petition has been filed by State Government assailing award dated 5th May, 1999 whereby learned Labour Court after adjudication of the dispute, set aside the order of termination of workman and while maintaining continuity of service directed the employer to pay full back wages to him for the intervening period. While notices were issued by this court on 15th March, 2001, impugned award was stayed to the extent of grant of back wages and it has been informed to this court that respondent-workman has been reinstated in pursuance of award impugned. Respondent-workman joined service as daily wager on 18th December, 1986 and worked upto 30th November, 1987 @Rs.14/- per day. Since he was not permitted to discharge his duties w.e.f. 1st CW 928/2001 [2] December, 1987, initially submitted application before the conciliation officer and finally a reference was made by appropriate government on 18th June, 1991 for adjudication of the dispute as to whether service of respondent-workman, which was terminated, was valid or not and to what relief he is entitled for. From the material came on record, learned Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that during preceding 12 months i.e. December, 1986 to November, 1987 his working period comes to 245 days and while his services were retrenched, the petitioner-employer failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but at the same time there was no cogent material came on record by which it could be observed that he was not gainfully employed during intervening period. Learned Labour Court while maintaining continuity of service, awarded him full back wages for the intervening period. After hearing counsel for parties and examined the material on record, this court is of the opinion that finding with respect to working of respondent-workman for the period of 245 days being finding of fact does not call for CW 928/2001 [3] interference and workman once had worked for more than 240 days certainly the employer was under an obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Undisputedly it was not complied with. Thus, this court does not find any infirmity so far as reinstatement of respondent- workman is concerned, but at the same time as regards granting him full back wages, there is material came on record, particularly, the cross- examination of workman Ann.4 where he himself deposed that he was engaged along with his brother in a sweet shop. On the basis of material on record, this court is of the opinion that granting full back wages to respondent-workman is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed and the award so far as granting him full back wages is concerned, to this extent the award is set aside and since the respondent-workman has already been reinstated, no further orders are required to be passed. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA928CW2001 18-3.doc