SBCWP No.4869/05. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4869/2005. Banney Singh Vs. Adhyaksh Adhishashi Adhikari Nagar Palika Rajakheda & Anr. Date of Order : September 25, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.F. Baig for the petitioner-workman. Shri Anil Jain for the respondent No.1-employer. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This writ petition seeks to challenge the award of the labour court dated 15/2/2005 whereby reference has been answered by the labour court in terms that retrenchment of the workman-petitioner by the respondents vide order dated 30/11/1993 was valid and he was not entitled for any relief. 3) Shri M.F. Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the notification issued by the government under the Minimum Wages Act, the workmen who were engaged on daily wage basis are entitled to salary of weekly SBCWP No.4869/05. 2 Holidays and this is arrived at by multiplying amount of daily wages by 30 days and then dividing the sum by 26 days. It was argued that learned labour court erred in law in not appreciating this fact in that the petitioner was paid Rs.1485/- only whereas he ought to have been paid Rs.1713.43. The calculation is thus; amount of salary according to Rs.38.07 per day for 30 days comes to Rs.1142.28 and compensation in lieu of retrenchment for 15 days @ Rs.38.07 per day comes to Rs.571.15 and thus in total Rs.1713.43, for which, the petitioner is entitled to receive but instead of paying this amount, petitioner has only been paid Rs.1485/- contrary to the above notification. It was argued that the learned labour court erred in law in not appreciating this fact and awarded a sum of Rs.1485/- though calculating wages for 30 days and not 15 days period of retrenchment and thus compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "Act of 1947") was not made. 4) Shri Anil Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-employer opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner himself in his statement of claim as also in his affidavit filed before the labour court has admitted that his monthly wages were Rs.990/- and therefore contention of the petitioner is devoid of substance. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record including SBCWP No.4869/05. 3 statement of claim as also the affidavit of the workman, I find that the petitioner-workman in his statement of claim himself has stated that he was engaged on the post of Mate and his wages were Rs.990/- per month and this fact has again been reiterated in para 1 of his affidavit filed before the labour court. 6) Notice issued to the petitioner under Section 25F of the Act of 1947 also states that petitioner's monthly wages were Rs.990/- and accordingly he was entitled to Rs.495/- as compensation apart from salary of one month and thus in total, petitioner was paid Rs.1485/-. Even if what is contended by the petitioner is accepted, labour court in para 10 of its award has found that if rate of daily wages i.e. Rs.33/- is multiplied by 30 days, total sum would come to Rs.990/-. From that angle also, amount of Rs.990/- has to form basis for making compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. 7) I therefore do not find any merit in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil