{ 1 } S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4494/1997. VIKAS ADHIKAR, PANCHAYAT SAMITI, SARDAR SHAHAR VS. SHANKARLAL DATE OF ORDER : 11.02.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. None present for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 26.11.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner, which came to be published as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under a notification dated 23.06.1997. In brief, facts of the case are that the appropriate government under its notification dated 31.05.1991, referred an industrial dispute to the labour court in the terms that “whether termination of workman Shri Shankar Lal s/o Shri Khetaram w.e.f. 15.12.89 by employer Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sardar Shahar, district Churu is valid and proper? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled?” { 2 } The workman by submitting a Statement of Claim, came forward with a case that he was employed as Beldar by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sardar Shahar on 13.02.89. His services were utilized in a Nursery run by the Panchayat Samiti, however, with effect from 15.12.1989, he was terminated from service without assigning any reason. The workman claimed that his termination from service is nothing but retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. In written, it was stated on behalf of the employer that appointment was given to the petitioner in DDP Scheme and NRIP Scheme sponsored by the Government of Rajasthan, therefore, his termination on completion of the schemes concerned is not retrenchment. Parties to the dispute advanced evidence to substantiate their claim and stand. The labour court by the award impugned after considering entire evidence available on record, reached at the conclusion that appointment was given to the respondent workman by Vikas Adhikar, Panchayat Samiti, Sardar Shahar as Beldar and his services were utilized for the work of plantation. The labour court also held that no adequate evidence was produced by the employer to satisfy that appointment to the respondent workman was given in any scheme sponsored by the { 3 } Government of Rajasthan. The labour court also held that termination of the workman was retrenchment as defined under the Act of 1947 and that was effected without adhering mandatory condition precedents prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The main contention as averred in this petition for writ is that the labour court failed to appreciate that the workman was employed in DDP Scheme and on abolition of that, he was discontinued from service, as such, the labour court erred by treating the termination as retrenchment. I do not find any substance in the contention referred above. The labour court after considering entire material available on record, gave a specific finding that appointment was given to the respondent workman by Vikas Adhikar, Panchayat Samiti, Sardar Shahar and no material was available to substantiate that such appointment was made under any Government Sponsored Scheme. Along with this petition for writ also, no material is placed by the petitioner employer on basis of that it can be said that appointment was given to the workman in any Government Sponsored Scheme, may that be DDP or NRIP. The findings given by the labour court are based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record and such finding of { 4 } fact is not required to be interfered by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/