1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6412/2003. CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL BOARD, SANCHORE VS. BHERU SINGH AND ANOTHER DATE OF ORDER : 14.08.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Rajesh Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Mehta for the respondent workman. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 09.10.2003 passed by the labour court, Jodhpur answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 10.05.2000 in the terms that “Whether termination of workman Shri Bheru Singh s/o Shri Hari Singh from service w.e.f. 17.05.1997 by the employer (1) Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sanchore, district Jalore and (2) President, Municipal Board, Sanchore, district Jalore is just and proper? If not, then for what relief and amount, the workman is entitled?” The learned labour court while setting aside the retrenchment of the workman being illegal, directed the employer to reinstate him in service with full back wages. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the labour court erred while treating the workman in continuous service and also for granting the relief of reinstatement with back wages. I have examined the award impugned. The labour court relied upon the stand of the employer before the Conciliation Officer to the extent that the workman was in service for a period of 120 days up to 31.12.1996 and thereafter for a period of 137 days in the year 1997 and as such the workman was taken into continuous service. The employer has taken a specific stand before the Conciliation Officer and there was no reason to take any different stand before the labour court or before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy the court regarding the reason for changing the stand before the labour court. I do not find any error in treating the petitioner in continuous service on basis of the stand of the employer itself before the Conciliation Officer. So far as the relief part is concerned, it is relevant to mention that in normal course, the reinstatement with full back wages is a natural corollary on declaration of the retrenchment 3 bad. However, the same can be denied, if the employer is not having the vacancies and there are certain other financial contingencies. In the present case, no such plea is taken by the petitioner and therefore, whatever relief granted by the labour court is quite just. I do not find any reason to interfere with the award impugned under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/