- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) INTRA Court appeal has been preferred as against order dated 14.08.2007 passed by Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/2001, modifying in part award dated 26.07.2000 passed by Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan(hereinafter to as 'the Labour Court') in Case No. 54/1992, thereby directing the reinstatement of the workman with 30% back wages and continuity in service. The workman rendered his services in two spells, i.e. initially in 1983-84 and thereafter, 01.04.1986 to 30.09.1989 as Sweeper. It was the case set up by the workman before the Labour Court that he had rendered the services for more than 240 days in each preceding year and his services had been terminated in violation of provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Stand of the employer-RSRTC was that the workman has rendered services from 01.04.1986 to 30.09.1986; his services were extended from time to time. The workman was working on contract, which period had come to end due to efflux of time, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of retrenchment, as contained in Section 2(oo) of the Act. After assessing evidence adduced by parties, the Labour Court came to conclusion that the workman has rendered services for more than 240 days in each of preceding year and the services of the workman could not have been terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Retrenchment of the workman has been held to be illegal and void. Reinstatement of the workman has been ordered with 30% back wages. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, writ petition was filed by the employer-RSRTC before the Single Bench. The same has been allowed in part vide order dated 14.08.2007. The Single Bench has modified the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent that the concerned workman shall be entitled for reinstatement on same terms and conditions he was employed at the time of termination from the date of award, i.e. 26.07.2000 only. It was further held that he shall not be entitled for any benefit prior to the above date. Since the termination related back to the year 1989, the employer was directed to reinstate the concerned workman within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Single Bench, this intra Court appeal has been preferred by the employer-appellant.
(3.) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the workman was working on contract basis and the said period of contract was extended from time to time, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of retrenchment. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find that continuous service was rendered by the workman and he served for more than 240 days in each calendar year. Consequently, we find that the findings of facts, which have been recorded by the Labour Court, call for no interference in the instant appeal, as the reinstatement has already been made and the workman is discharging his duties also. Back wages part, prior to the date of award, has already been set aside by the Single Bench. After date of award, obviously, reinstatement was required to be made by the employer. No interference in the order passed by the Single Bench is called for. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed. ;