- (1.) THE petitioners State of Rajasthan and its Executive Engineer have challenged in this petition the impugned award passed by the Labour Court whereby the respondent workmen were ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages. While admitting this petition initially the impugned award was stayed but later on stay was modified on an application filed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and all the respondents workmen were reinstated in service. Thus, they are in service since 1995 till today,
(2.) ON appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of the workmen was wrong and illegal, therefore, it was set aside. The Labour Court gave clear finding that while retaining the juniors, the service of the respondents workmen were terminated. However, Mr. B. C. Mehta for the petitioners tried to submit that those juniors were given appointment on compassionate ground on the death of their relations who were in service of the petitioners. Be that as it may, they might have been given appointment on this ground but the fact remained that they were juniors and when the persons are to be retrenched then one has to go by the principle of 'last come first go'. Thus, the Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that while retaining the workmen their services were not terminated.
(3.) HAVING carefully gone through the reasons assigned by the Labour Court in its impugned award, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in, exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution if it is based on evidence. The attempt was made by the learned counsel Shri B. C. Mehta to argue the matter on facts as if this is an appeal, therefore, he was prevented from doing so.;