SBCWP NO.4199/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4199/2007. Rajvir Vs. Labour Court Bharatpur & Ors. Date of Order : 21/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri N.K. Singhal for the petitioner. **** BY THE COURT : This writ petition seeks to challenge the award of the Labour Court Bharatpur dated 25/7/2006 (Ann.1) wherby reference made to the labour court on the question whether termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1/6/1992 was valid, has been answered in the affirmative and the claim of the petitioner was dismissed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned labour court erred in law in not appreciating the fact that petitioner had worked for the period from 27/2/1990 to 31/5/1992 and thus worked for more than 300 days and respondents No.2 and 3 did not comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 (for short, the "Act of 1947"). Further, apart from washing of the vehicles, other work was also taken from him from time to time. SBCWP NO.4199/07. 2 It was contended that initially the petitioner was appointed for a period of three months but his appointment was extended from time to time and the use of the word 'contract' has been made only with a view to defeating just claim of the petitioner for regularisation. It was argued that petitioner has worked for more than 300 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of the retrenchment, therefore compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 was required to be made if at all the respondents wanted to terminate his services. Counsel further submitted that petitioner was paid remuneration for washing number of vehicles and that no outstanding payment remained to be paid to him. It was argued that petitioner exhibited before the labour court as many 10 documents to prove his continuous working. However, learned labour court did not appreciate these documents and illegally answered the reference in affirmative in favour of respondents No.2 and 3. Learned counsel further argued that the respondents did not furnish the list of those employees who were appointed on daily wage basis before the labour court. 3) A perusal of the award dated 25/7/2006 passed by the learned labour court reveals that the documentary evidence that was produced by the petitioner itself prove that petitioner was engaged on contract basis for washing of the vehicles of RSRTC. The petitioner, in an unequivocal terms, admitted in SBCWP NO.4199/07. 3 his cross-examination that he was given appointment on contract basis for washing vehicles and was paid for number of the washed vehicles, therefore he cannot claim regular appointment. Mere fact that initially, it was also stated that he was made to work as Helper, could not detract the fact that appointment was not made on regular basis but was on constract basis. 4) Learned labour court, therefore, in my considered view, was justified in holding that in view of provisions contained in Section 200(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947, it cannot be said that services of the petitioner were retrenched as his appointment was contractual in nature and hence, he was rightly held not entitled to get the benefits of retrenchment. The writ petition is therefore dismissed being devoid of any merit. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-