SBCWP No.386/97- Shakur v. Asstt. Engineer, PHED, Jayal Date of order: 26.3.2009 1 S.B.C.W.P. No.386/1997 Shakur v. Asstt. Engineer, PHED, Jayal & another Date of order: 26th March, 2009 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr D.K. Parihar, for the petitioner Mr Vimal Mathur, for the respondents To assail validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 06th August, 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur this petition for writ is preferred. By a notification dated 02nd December, 1992, the appropriate government referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court in terms that - “Whether termination of workman Shri Shakur Chhipa with effect from 21st June, 1990 by the Assistant Engineer, Department of Water Works, Jayal district- Nagaur is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?” The Labour Court after considering entire material available on record reached at the conclusion that the workman was not in continuous service of the employer as defined under sec.25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 {herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1947'}, as such, there was no need to adhere to mandatory conditions precedent for a valid retrenchment as prescribed under sec.25-F of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court also reached at the conclusion that no adequate evidence was placed SBCWP No.386/97- Shakur v. Asstt. Engineer, PHED, Jayal Date of order: 26.3.2009 2 on record by the workman for substantiating allegation of violation of provisions of sec.25-H of the Act of 1947 by the employer. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the Labour Court erred while reaching at the conclusion that the workman was not in continuous service. It is asserted that, as a matter of fact, case of the employer was that the workman left the services at his own, meaning thereby, the workman was remaining absent from duties unauthorizedly and this question has not been dealt with by the court below. I do not find any merit in the arguments advance. The respondent employer came with specific stand before the Labour Court that the workman was not in continuous service and also that he abandoned the service. As such, there is no question of any unauthorized absence. The Labour Court also found that the workman was not in continuous services of the employer and he also abandoned the service. No error, therefore, exists in the award impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma