1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 99 of 2009 RADHEY SHYAM PANWAR V/S JUDGE LABOUR COURT & ANR. Mr. KULDEEP MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. YASHWANT MEHTA, for the respondent Date of Order : 21.1.2009 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16th October 2006 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2454/2002 by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and thereby the Award dated 08.05.2001 impugned in the petition, passed by Labour Court upholding the removal of workman appellant by the Management on 9th August 1986, has been affirmed. The case of the appellant before the Labour Court was that he was initially appointed on the post of Naka Guard with the respondents on July 11, 1985 and was later on given permanent appointment on the said post on 8th August 1985 and he continued to work so till 8th August 1986. According to the appellant, respondents without compliance of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') removed the appellant from service 2 even though he had completed 240 of service in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his removal. According to him, neither any notice was given to him nor compensation was paid. It is also the case of the appellant that the employees working with him viz., Hemraj, Murlidhar and Gopi Kishan were regularized and that the respondents did not publish any seniority list at the time of his removal and thus violated the provisions of Sec.25-H of the Act as well as Rules 77 & 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1947. The claim made by the appellant was contested by the respondents by filing reply wherein all the averments made by the appellant were denied. The Labour Court, on adjudication, dismissed the reference and declined to grant relief of reinstatement in service to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the impugned Award. The learned Single Judge, on re-appriasal of the entire testimonials collected, has dismissed the writ petition, giving rise to the instant appeal at the instance of original petitioner. We have heard Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yashwant Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 employer Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and also perused the impugned order as well as the award 3 which was impugned in the petition. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed that the workman has worked only for 161 days, and therefore, there was no violation of Sec.25-F of the Act. The contention that the employees Hemraj, Murlidhar and Gopi Kishan were regularized is also without substance as their appointment was made by the Director, Local Bodies on regular basis and the appellant could not compare himself with them as he was illegally appointed and therefore Sec.25H cannot be invoked by the appellant. Besides this, learned Single Judge has also given finding that appellant could not prove as to by what method he was engaged in service. In view of this, according to us, Labour Court is right in dismissing the reference made by the appellant so also the learned Single Judge is right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding arrived at by the Labour Court which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no interference is called for. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( AM KAPADIA ),J. 4 JPA