1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4454/2003 Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Man Singh & Anr. Date of Order :: 15 th January, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Kailash Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansari, for the respondents. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dated 8.1.2002 passed by learned Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No.1/95. By the award impugned learned Labour Court while declaring termination of the respondent workman illegal directed the petitioner employer to reinstate him in service without back wages. The challenge to the award impugned is given on the count that the Labour Court without having any evidence on record treated the workman in continuous employment of the employer and further on the count that the Labour Court could have granted the relief of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. I do not find any force in the contentions so raised as the Labour Court while treating the respondent workman in continuous employment gave a specific finding that according to the chart produced by the workman he was in employment of the petitioner 2 for a period of 264 days in a calender year. It is pertinent to note that the chart given by the workman with regard to his working days was disputed by the employer, therefore, an application was preferred on 7.1.2000 by the workman to call the record concerned. Despite order of the court the record was not produced and, therefore, an inference was drawn by the court that the workman was in continuous service of the employer. The workman alongwith the statement of claim gave all details about his working days and to substantiate the same preferred an application to call the relevant record. The employer without any just and valid reason chose not to produce the record and, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court rightly drew the inference that the workman was in employment of the petitioner for the period given in the chart produced alongwith statement of claim. The issue with regard to payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is also of no consequence as once the order of retrenchment is found illegal, the order of reinstatement is a natural corollary except in the cases of loss of confidence. In the instant matter it was no where case of the petitioner that the employer has lost confidence with the workman, as such no illegality is committed by the Labour Court while making a direction to reinstate the workman in service. 3 The award impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.