1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3312/1996 (Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. Vs. Chand Ratan & Ors.) Date of order : January 08th, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the respondent No.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Division Bikaner has challenged the award dated 7.12.1994 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner whereby the Judge, Labour Court while quashing the retrenchment w.e.f. 29.9.1985 passed an order for reinstatement of the workman - respondent No.1, so also, passed an order for continuance of service with full back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in this case though it is not disputed by 2 the petitioner in his reply to the claim that the workman has completed 240 days but specifically it is stated that he has abandoned the services and did not turn up after 29.9.1985, therefore, there is no question of compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 147 (hereinafter “the Act” only) and the Judge, Labour Court has wrongly arrived at with the finding that the services of the workman respondent No.1 were terminated by employer. However, it is prayed that reference has been made in the year 1993 whereas admittedly the workman respondent has challenged the retrenchment w.e.f. 29.9.1985, therefore, at a belated stage, he has raised the industrial dispute. Therefore, on this ground also, the award passed by Judge, Labour Court deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the award passed by Judge, Labour Court is contrary to the evidence on record and hence deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman – respondent No.1 vehemently argued that in this case, there is no dispute with regard to completion of 240 days by the workman. Further, it is argued that the Judge, Labour Court after appreciating the documentary evidence has arrived at with the finding that it is a case of retrenchment and not the abandonment of service and this Court while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of 3 India cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which is based on finding of fact. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned. The learned Labour Court has specifically observed in the award that there is no dispute with regard to tenure of service of workman and it has been observed that the respondent workman was employed w.e.f. 7.6.1983 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 29.9.1985 but while disagreeing with the ground of petitioner that the workman has abandoned the service gave finding on the basis of documentary evidence that the workman's services were retrenched and he has not abandoned the service. In these circumstances, I see no reason to re-appreciate the evidence, which is based on finding of fact. However, in my opinion, admittedly, the workman has challenged the order of his termination w.e.f. 29.9.1985 and reference was made to the Judge, Labour Court vide notification dated 20.9.1993 and award was passed on 7.12.1994 allowing the reinstatement along with consequential benefits including back wages. In my opinion, allowing the back wages to the workman from the date of retrenchment which is 29.9.1985 to the date of award is not right because for this period, the workman did 4 not work so also he has raised industrial dispute at belated stage and the reference was made on 20.9.1993. In these circumstances, while upholding the finding of Judge, Labour Court with regard to illegal termination, the order for back wages w.e.f. 29.9.1985 to the date of award is set aside. However, the workman-respondent No.1 will be entitled for all other consequential benefits as ordered by Judge, Labour Court. It is also observed that in the year 1999, the workman was already reinstated in service and he is in service. With the aforesaid modifications, the award is modified and the writ petition is partly allowed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun