// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.241/2001 {State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Labour Court-I, Jaipur and Another} Date of Order ::: 13.05.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri S.C. Purohit, Government Counsel for petitioners Shri Manoj Pareek, Counsel for workman/respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Although matter has come up for orders on application dated 8th April, 2009 filed by workman/respondent No.2 Mangla Ram for taking document i.e. order dated 27th July, 2000, on record, but, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, final arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed of. The workman/respondent No.2 was initially appointed as 'beldar' in April, 1986 and his services were terminated in the year 1987. An application was filed before the Conciliation Officer but a failure report was given; thereafter a reference was made by the State Government. Ex- parte award was passed in favour of the workman on 4th August, 1990. An application was moved by petitioners for setting-aside the ex-parte award. During pendency of the application, the workman/respondent No.2 was taken on duty. // 2 // Thereafter ex-parte award was set-aside but again, after hearing both the parties, the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur, passed Award dated 12th July, 1999 (Annexure-9) in favour of workman/respondent No.2 whereby it was held that termination order of workman/respondent No.2 dated 14th July, 1987 was not valid and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. He was further held to be entitled for 50% of salary for the period from 1987 till 01.01.1991 when he was taken back in service. The said award is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that workman/respondent No.2 has continuously been working since 01.01.1991. During pendency of this writ petition, workman/respondent No.2 was declared surplus in the Irrigation Department and was absorbed in Panchayat Raj Department vide order dated 21st June, 2000 and since then he has been working in the said Department. The only dispute in present writ petition relates to 50% of back wages for the period from 1987 to 1990. Learned counsel for workman/respondent No.2 contended that he will not claim any back wages as per the impugned award dated 12th July, 1999 (Annexure-9) as he is satisfied with the award and he has already been working since 1991 continuously, therefore, this writ petition itself may be disposed of as having become infructuous. // 3 // In view of the above statement of learned counsel for workman/respondent No.2, learned counsel for petitioners does not press the writ petition seriously so far as reinstatement of respondent No.2 is concerned for the reason that the respondent No.2 has continuously been working for last about 19 years i.e. since 1st January, 1991, and he also agrees that writ petition may be disposed of as having become infructuous. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that workman/respondent No.2 was taken back in service on 1st January, 1991 and since then he has continuously been working and further that workman/respondent No.2 has already waived his right to recover 50% of back wages for the period from 1987 to 1990 as per impugned Award, it is not necessary to decide the controversy involved in the present writ petition, and the same is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. The application filed by the respondent No.2 also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//