IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 918 of 2008 STATE OF RAJ. V/S JUDGE,LABOUR COURT,BHILWARA & ORS. Mr. VIMAL MATHUR, DY.GC, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MUKESH RAJPUROHIT AND VIKRAM RAJPUROHIT, for respondent No.2 & 3. Date of Order : 18.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 29.07.2008 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2976 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge, whereby Award dated 24.01.2005 passed by the labour Court, Bhilwara declaring retrenchment of the workmen illegal and ordering their reinstatement with 50% back wages has been upheld. The only contention raised by Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant is that the two workmen were employed through contractors and not by the department and therefore there was no relationship of master and servant between appellant and the workmen. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties. We have also perused the order passed by learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the labour Court. A perusal of the Award transpires that during the course of cross examination of the workmen, it was revealed that the workmen were receiving wages from the Assistant Engineer of the Department. That apart, the Junior Engineer stated in his affidavit that the workmen were working in the department for about 3-4 years and they were supplied to the department through contractors viz., M/s. Sharp Security, M/s. Reliance Security, or Pandey Sharp Security Services but in this connection no evidence has been led by the appellant that the workmen were supplied by contractors, therefore, according to us, no error has been committed by the labour Court in passing order of reinstatement of the employee workmen with 50% back wages and learned Single Judge has also not committed any error in confirming the award passed by labour Court. The order passed by learned Single Judge require no interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, special appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( AM KAPADIA ),J. JPA