Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the award dated 30th April, 2002 passed in the labour case No. 293/1999 by which labour Court held that retrenchment of the petitioner from 19th Feb., 1996 is illegal. The labour Court allowed the reinstatement of the non-petitioner with continuity of the service with 25% of the back wages from the date of reference i.e. 25th August, 1998 till the non-petitioner is reinstated.
(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-petitioner was appointed by order dated 28th Jan., 1992 (Annex. P/1) wherein it was provided that the non-petitioner was appointed against the vacant post and whenever regular incumbent will be available, the non-petitioner will be removed. Since, the non-petitioner was removed from the service, therefore, he prepared (preferred) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2518/1993 wherein there was stay order passed by this Court and the non-petitioner continued to work with the petitioner till his writ petition was dismissed by this Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the writ petition of the petitioner, this Court directed non-petitioner to approach the labour Court for redressal of his grievance. On 19th Feb., 1996 an order was passed by the petitioner terminating services of the petitioner. The State Government referred to the dispute to the labour Court to adjudicate whether the order of retrenchment No. 65915 dated 19th Feb., 1996 is valid or not. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of work which he was permitted to do in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2518/1993.;