- (1.) THIS petition for writ is preferred to challenge validity, correctness and propriety of award dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No.30/2006 (Shankar Lal Vs. Medical Officer cum Incharge Government Health Centre, Rani, District Pali). The appropriate government by a notification dated 3.3.2005 referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that "Whether the applicant-workman Shankar Lal S/o Shri Raja Ram, resident of Nai Abadi, Bhadarva Ka Jav, Khudala Falna was rightly terminated from service by his employer, Medical Officer cum Incharge Government Health Centre, Rani, District Pali on 16.11.1993? If yes, then for what relief and amount the workman is entitled for ?".
(2.) AFTER registration of dispute, a notice was issued to the respondent workman as well as the petitioner and the respondent- workman filed a statement of claim. As per the respondent- workman, he remained in employment of his employer from 13.6.1990 to 15.11.1993, but on 16.11.1993 he was terminated from service and the termination so made is nothing but retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). The retrenchment as per the workman was made without adhering to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. A return to the statement of claim was filed on behalf of the employer with assertion that appointment was given to the respondent-workman on part-time basis and he never remained in continuous employment. An objection was also raised by the employer about the delay caused in raising the dispute, however, the petitioner-employer did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the averments contained in written statement. The Labour Court after examining the entire evidence available arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-workman was in continuous employment of the employer as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 and he was retrenched from service on 16.11.1993 without observing the mandatory condition precedents to do so. While dealing with the objection regarding delay in raising the industrial dispute, the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-workman was making all his best efforts to get the dispute resolved bilaterally as his employer was regularly giving assurance for his re-employment.
(3.) THE Labour Court in view of the findings above, answered the reference by declaring the retrenchment illegal and by directing the employer to re-instate the workman in service with 25% backwages. A specific direction was also given to treat the respondent-workman in continuous service from the date of his retrenchment i.e. 16.11.1993. In this petition for writ, while submitting the award aforesaid, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner- employer is that the respondent-workman was working on part- time capacity and his service is having certain breakages and, as such, he does not complete continuous service as required under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced.;