- (1.) BY way of this intra-court appeal, the appellants seek to question the order dated 02.09.2011 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.7981/2011) after finding no case for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the award dated 17.03.2011 as made by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Dispute Case No.61/2007.
(2.) THE dispute as referred by the State Government on 23.01.2007 and adjudicated by the Labour Court in the award dated 17.03.2011 has been to the following effect: - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The learned Labour Court found the termination of services of the respondent-workman invalid and violative of the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act of 1947'); and, while answering the reference in favour of the employee, State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Kiran Gaur & Anr. directed the appellants to reinstate her in service and to grant her 25% of the back wages from the date of termination of services, i.e., 12.07.2002. Seeking to assail the award so made by the learned Labour Court, the contention urged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition had been that the respondent did not come within the purview of "workman" per Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 as she was being paid consolidated salary. The learned Single Judge observed that the mode of payment was no criteria for determining the fact as to whether the employee was a workman under the Act of 1947 or not. The learned Single Judge found no fault in the finding of the learned Labour Court that the respondent was a "workman" as she was employed to do the manual work for hire and reward. It is sought to be submitted in this appeal that the respondent was engaged in a project named as Integrated Child Development Service ('ICDS'); and that the posts of Anganwadi Worker/Assistant in the said project are not of any statutory character but have been created only in terms of the said project. It is, therefore, contended that neither any service rules are applicable to the respondent nor the respondent could be said to be a workman from any point of view. We are afraid, the argument lacks merits and cannot be sustained. So far ICDS is concerned, it is said to be a programme that commenced in the year 1975 and is continuing as such. The respondent herself was engaged way back in the year 1996 and was continuing until 12.07.2002. Looking to the nature of the particular job and the overall circumstances, it cannot be said that it had been
(3.) STATE of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Kiran Gaur & Anr. an engagement on a temporary project. It is not the case of the appellants that the said ICDS has come to an end. This is apart from the fact that such an argument appears not to have been advanced before the learned Single Judge. In any case, the award made by the learned Labour Court in this matter cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction; and the learned Single Judge was, therefore, fully justified in declining to entertain the writ petition. However, during the course of consideration, upon our expressing reservations on the proposition regarding award of 25% back wages in this case, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in all fairness, submitted that in the totality of circumstances, the respondent would not insist for payment towards back wages. ;