1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1651/2005 Dy. Director, C.D.P.O., Pali & Anr. Vs. Shri Hema Ram Date of Order :: 05.09.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.C.S. Ojha, Dy. Govt. Counsel. Mr.Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, petitioner-department is challenging the validity of award dated 14th November, 2007 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur. Upon Perusal of the award, it is obvious that services of respondent-workman were terminated without following provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 2 therefore, the learned Judge, Labour Court has passed an award for reinstatement of respondent- workman w.e.f. 01st November, 1995 with 50% back wages alongwith continuity in service. In my opinion, admittedly petitioner- department is an “industry” and respondent is workman, therefore, at the time of retrenchment, petitioner-department was under an obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which is not complied with by the petitioner-department, therefore, the Judge, Labour Court has rightly arrived at with the finding that termination of respondent-workman is in violation of provisions of Section 25-F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The finding of Judge, Labour Court is based on appreciation of cogent evidence produced by workman before the Court, so also, upon admitted position of the case that respondent-workman was initially appointed on 21st May, 1991 and worked up to 31st October, 1995, therefore, there is no dispute with regard to completion of 240 days by the workman in preceding one calender year from the date of retrenchment. In this view of the matter, it is not a 3 fit case in which power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised. The writ petition filed by petitioner- department is hereby dismissed. The petitioner- department is directed to reinstate the respondent-workman and grant him wages and other reliefs as granted by the Judge, Labour Court in the award impugned forthwith and pay him salary also with effect from the date of award. However, it is made clear that for the purpose of regularization of his services, respondent-workman may file a representation alongwith copy of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 before petitioner- department. Upon filing such representation, department shall decide the question of regularization as per para 53 to 55 of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/- A.K. Chouhan/-