1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. V. GANESHLAL & ANR. S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.594/2008. DATE OF ORDER :::: 28-01-2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mrs. R.R.Kanwar, Additional Govt. Counsel, for Petitioner. BY THE COURT: This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2007, passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. In the said award, the Labour Court directed that the respondent- workman, instead of being re-instated, may be paid lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/- Mrs. R. R. Kanwar, learned Additional Govt. Counsel, has argued that earlier award, passed in favour of the petitioner, was challenged by the State Government in Writ Petition No.4789/2003, wherein this Court, by judgment dated 20.11.2006, while setting aside the award, remanded the 2 matter to the Labour Court to decide it afresh, after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the State Government was required to make payment of last paid wages to the petitioner in terms of of Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 and already, more than an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioner-State to the respondent-workman. It is argued that although for the initial period of 1st June, 1992 to 30th November, 1992, the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner and, as per muster roll, his total period of working comes to only 111 days, but, in the subsequent period, he was employee of the Users Company which made payment to him, therefore, the finding of the learned Labour Court that the workman has completed 240 days in the service, has wrongly been arrived at by clubbing the aforesaid two spells. It was, therefore, prayed that the award passed by the Labour Court may be set aside. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award and other material forming part of the record, I find that the learned Labour Court has, on appreciation of the evidence, came to hold that the respondent- workman has worked under the control of Agriculture Officer, 3 Pali for the period 1.12.92 to 31.10.93 which comes to be period of 279 days. Thus, it was found that he was working under effective the control of the aforesaid officer and, therefore, even if for later period, he was appointed through Users Committee, he would not cease to be employee working under the control of the aforesaid officer. The learned Labour,Court, however, considering the fact that respondent No.1 was not working on substantive post and was not appointed regularly, instead of re- instatement, simply directed to pay to him lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error of fact or law in the award of the learned Labour Court. There is in my view no justification for interfering with the award of the learned Labour Court. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. scd