- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the award dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara holding therein that the retrenchment of the workman effected by the employer was in violation of the mandatory condition precedent for a valid retrenchment as prescribed under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service with 50% of the total back wages.
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties have stated that similar writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the award passed by the learned Labour Court in the cases of other workmen has already been dismissed vide judgment dated 02.09.2005 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4653/2005 (Shri Sanwaliya Ji Mandir Mandal Vs. Tulu Ram & Anr.). A copy of the said order has been produced before this Court.
(3.) This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4653/2005 has held as under:- "The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent workman was employed with the petitioner through a contractor and therefore, he was not workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is having no merit in view of the definition of the workman as provided under Section 2 (s) (Rajasthan Amendment) of the Act of 1947. The same is reproduced as under:- "Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry by an employer or by a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any person- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." In view of the Rajasthan Amendment and the definition of workman provided under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947, even if a person employed by an employer through a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract, is workman. In light of it, the contention so raised is meritless and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.";