IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7441/07 Smt. Ramwati vs. Ranger, Social Forestry & Ors. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7758/07 Ranger Social Forestry & Ors. vs. Ramwati & Anr. Date of order : 22/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.K. Verma for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State. ****** These two appeals are directed against the award dated 27.4.2008 passed by learned Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal on a reference made to it by the appropriate government whether removal of the workman Smt. Ramwati by the Ranger, Social Forestry, Sabi River Project, Tizara was legal and justified. The reference was answered by the Labour Court in the terms that services of the workman was removed without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G and therefore she is entitled to reinstatement in service with 25% back wages. Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Addl. Government Counsel assailing the award has argued that the appointment of the workman was made in a project and that she could not therefore ordered to be reinstated in service. It was argued that the workman failed to prove that she has completed 240 days in a calender year immediately preceding the date of his alleged removal inasmuch as the learned Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement of the workman. Alternatively, it was argued that only compensation should have awarded because the respondent was retrenched long back in 1991 and relief of reinstatement should not have been awarded in 2007. Shri M.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the workman opposed the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and submitted that the case of the State before the Labour Court was that the workman abandoned the service. But the fact was that the Labour Court found that the workman worked for 231 actual working days between February, 1991 to November 1991 and if the number of gazetted holidays are added thereto, this becomes 271 days. No evidence was produced by the State that she was engaged in a project. Learned counsel also argued that Labour Court ought to have awarded full back wages to the workman and to that extent, award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside with direction to the State Government to award the full back wages. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned, I find that there was no plea taken by the State that the workman was engaged in a particular project inasmuch no evidence whatsoever was led on that aspect. The contention that the workman abandoned the service on her own also was not believed by the Labour Court. It was found that the actual working days of the workman for the period from 1.2.1991 to 31.11.1991 were 231 days and thus her removal from service by order dated 1.12.1991 was violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The argument that the workman should not have been reinstated and should have been granted lump sum compensation cannot be accepted because in the present case, the reinstatement has been ordered by award dated 27.4.2007 with only 25% back wages. It is always open to the State that if they want to dispense with the services of the workman to do so after complying with the requirements of Section 25-F, but due to non compliance thereof, the direction of the Labour Court to reinstate him in service cannot be faulted. At the same time, I do not find any merit in the claim of the workman that she should be awarded full back wages. Both the writ petitions are therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/ S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7758/07 Ranger Social Forestry & Ors. vs. Ramwati & Anr. Date of order : 22/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri B.L. Awasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the petitioners. Shri M.K. Verma for the respondent. ****** The writ petition stands dismissed. (See separate order in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7441/07, Smt. Ramwati vs. Ranger, Social Forestry & Ors.) BY ORDER COURT MASTER