1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6803/2007. : : Bharosi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 8.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to call for the entire record of Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No.81/1998 and the respondents be directed to implement the award of Labour Court dated 16.11.2005 which required to reinstate petitioner without back wages but with continuity of service. 3. Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents have so far not complied with the award and have not reinstated the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondents have now passed fresh order of his termination even without reinstating 2 him in service. 4. This Court by order dated 13.2.2009 on perusal of averments made in para No.4 & 5 of reply it was averred by the respondents that petitioner was already in service directed the respondents to file necessary documents to the same effect. Learned Additional Government Counsel has today filed an additional affidavit with certain documents, sanctioned order of payment of Rs.23,725/- towards arrears of total wages for the period subsequent to the date of award has been issued and also on record the order dated 4.6.2007 passed by Government. This order states that sanction for the aforesaid period was made by the Government with condition that action shall be taken for removal of petitioner by complying provision of Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The documents produced by respondents do not show that respondents ever reinstated the petitioner. Their complaint is that when payment in the sum of Rs.38,909/- was sent to petitioner in compliance of the award he refused to accept the same. 3 6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that this amount also included the notice pay and compensation under Section 25-F, which the petitioner did not accept because the respondents did not comply with order passed by this Court on 16.11.2006 to reinstate him in service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clearly evident that respondents have failed to prove before this Court that petitioner was ever reinstated in service. In fact, conditioned sanction order for payment of arrears was issued by Government that simultaneously action shall be taken for removal of petitioner. The order of sanction of Government dated 4.6.2007 although allows the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and sanction the payment of aforesaid amount but with the rider that his services shall be terminated under the provisions of ID Act. This cannot be termed as compliance of award. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fresh reinstate the petitioner in service and make all payments of his arrears. They may, thereafter if so desire, proceed in accordance with provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 4 Compliance of this judgment is made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.63.