1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1738/2008 State of Raj. & anr. V/s Lekh Chand & anr. 14.11.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Raghuvendra S.Rathore Mr.B.L.Avasthi, Addl.Government Counsel for the appellants. Mr.D.C.Gupta for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties both upon limitation application and also in appeal. Delay in filing this appeal however is condoned. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the writ application filed on behalf of the appellants-State, directed for reinstatement of the workman concerned as per the award passed by the labour court with a consolidated amount of Rs.8000/- towards back wages. The labour court on basis of reference made under section 10(1) of the ID Act adjudicated upon the matter and held that since the concerned workman had worked continuously for 240 days in a calender year, he could not have been terminated without following the procedure of Section 25F and G of the ID Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge of this Court, on basis of appreciation of evidence and pleadings of the parties, affirmed the award. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the concerned workman had not completed 240 days and since he was engaged under National Gramin Bhumiheen Rojgar Guarantee and Akal Rahat Yojna, the reference itself was not 2 maintainable and no relief as such could have been granted to the concerned workman. On plain reading of the award and the impugned order it would appear that no evidence whatsoever was led by the employer-State of Rajasthan showing that the concerned workman was engaged under the scheme aforesaid and had not completed 240 days in a calender year, rather there was overwhelming evidence on part of the workman to prove that he was a workman and had continuously worked under the employer for 240 days. It is not in dispute that without observing the provisions of Section 25F and G of the ID Act, the concerned workman was terminated from services. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the award passed by the labour court and order impugned, in our view, cannot be faulted. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. (Raghuvendra S.Rathore)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar