1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 924/2001 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Munshikhan & Anr.) ......... Date of Order : 09/01/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. K.V.Vyas, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. L.M.Lodha for the respondent-workman. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer has challenged the award Annex.1 dated 04.12.2000 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No.2, Labour Court, Bhilwara (for short 'the Labour Court' hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned Additional Govt. Counsel firstly that the respondent No.1 workman was not engaged by the petitioner-employer but was engaged through the Contractor and secondly it was contended that the respondent No.1 workman has not completed 240 days in calendar year and 2 therefore, there was no need for compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act' hereinafter). Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman submits that the respondent-workman was initially engaged in the year 1986 and since 1986 onwards he has been continuously working with the petitioner-employer on daily wages on muster-roll and his services came to be terminated with effect from 1992 in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. I have carefully gone through the award impugned. On an industrial dispute being raised by the respondent-workman, the State Govt. by a notification dated 13.03.1995 made a reference to the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court answered the reference against the respondent- workman and therefore, the workman filed a writ petition being SBCW No.2235/97 before this Court which came to be allowed by order dated 09.08.2000 remanding the matter to the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute referred to it afresh in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, the respondent Labour Court adjudicated the dispute referred to it by award impugned dated 4.12.2000. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the concerned parties, statement of claim was filed by the 3 respondent-workman, reply thereto was filed by the employer- petitioner and the parties led evidence before the Labour Court. On appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent- workman has worked for 240 days in a Calendar year and undisputedly his services have been terminated without notice or payment of one month salary, in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act. The Labour Court held that the termination of respondent-workman with effect from July, 1992 was illegal and against the provisions of law and therefore, the respondent- workman is entitled for reinstatement and accordingly ordered to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service as also ordered to pay back wages from the date he was terminated. From the material produced before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that the respondent-workman was not engaged through Contractor but it was the petitioner- employer who engaged the respondent-workman on muster-roll basis which is evident from some of the muster-rolls filed by the petitioner-employer. However, the petitioner-employer despite the direction of the Labour Court failed to produce the muster- rolls of eight months and therefore, the Labour Court has drawn an adverse inference against the employer. Be that as it may, from the perusal of the award impugned, it appears that in the month of June, July, August, October, in most of the months, the 4 respondent-workman worked for 25, 26 and 27 days and on these premises, for the period for which the muster-rolls were not produced by the employer, the Labour Court computed the period and by totaling that period on drawing adverse inference for non-production of muster-roll of eight months, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent-workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year and his services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. In my view, the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court do not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Even after filing the writ petition, the award of the Labour Court has not been stayed by this Court and therefore, by now the respondent workman might have been reinstated in service. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp