SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners State of Rajasthan and the Assistant Engineer have challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 7. 1. 99 (Annex. 8) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby the Labour Court while declaring the termination of the respondent workman had, ordered only compensation of Rs. 27,000/- instead of reinstatement with back wages.
(2.) ON the basis of the impugned order dated 27. 7. 91 (Annex. 3), learned counsel Mr. Mehta tried to submit that the appointment of the workman was purely on daily wages basis and his services were terminated prior to completion of 240 days. It is a fact that no formal order of appointment of workman was passed while appointing him on daily wages but while terminating his services, the order in writing was passed on 27. 7. 91 (Annex. 3 ). This is clear that they never wanted the workman to complete 240 days, therefore, only the order at Annex. 3 came to be passed. If the workman had completed 240 days, then they could not have in an arbitrary manner terminated the services of the respondent workman. Thus, a device was found out to get rid of the services of the respondent workman and accordingly, the order at Annex. 3 was passed. This practice adopted by none else but the State has been consistently condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The State Government is not supposed to act like a private employer. Under the Constitution, it is the duty of the State Government to provide employment to its citizen. Instead of providing any employment to the citizen of the State, a device has been found out to get rid of them by terminating the services in this manner which should be condemned in the strongest words. Be that as it may. The impugned award dated 7. 1. 99 has not been so far challenged by the respondent workman, therefore, I am not required to give my verdict as to whether he was rightly denied the reinstatement with back wages or not? In the instant case, the State Government should have satisfied with the order of compensation of only Rs. 27,000/- awarded to the respondent workman by the Labour Court. Instead of that, it has chosen to file writ petition against such award. In my considered opinion, the grievance, if any, was to be made by the workman and not by the State against such award. However, once the Labour Court has exercised its discretion in awarding compensation while holding that the termination was bad and denied reinstatement with back wages to the respondent workman; then this Court in a petition filed by the State will not interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed. .;