1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5324/2008 Jaikaran Singh Vs. The Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr. Date of Order :: 6.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. K.S. Yadav, for the petitioner. ... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dated 7.4.2006 passed by the labour court, Bikaner answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 8.12.1998 in the terms, “whether termination of employee Sh. Jaskaran Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh by the Chairman, Land Allotment Committee, Bhudan Yagya Board, Chattargarh, Bikaner and its Secretary, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur w.e.f. 7.11.1995 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?” In brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Draftsman with Land Allotment Authority, Bhudan Yagya Board, Chattargarh and he stood terminated from service on 7.11.1995. An industrial dispute raised by the petitioner was referred for its adjudication to labour court, Bikaner under a notification dated 8.12.1998, however, subsequent thereto on 6.8.1999 the employer re- engaged the petitioner with a specific condition that whatever 2 proceedings pending regarding earlier termination shall be withdrawn by the workman. The re-engagement of the petitioner also came to an end on 10.12.1999. Learned labour court while answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government under the notification dated 8.12.1998 treated the dispute infructuous in view of the fact that the re-engagement of the workman was subject to withdrawal of the dispute. While assailing validity of the award aforesaid the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.12.1999 is incidental to his earlier termination made on 7.11.1995, and therefore, the same should have been adjudicated by the learned labour court while deciding the reference made to it on 8.12.1998. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced. The petitioner was terminated from service on 7.11.1995 and thereafter he was re-engaged with a specific condition regarding withdrawal of the earlier dispute. His subsequent re-engagement and termination on 10.12.1999 are absolutely different cause and by no stretch of imagination that can be treated as a matter incidental to earlier dispute. The labour court, therefore, has not committed any 3 error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '