Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner - State of Rajasthan, in the instant writ application, has projected a challenge to the validity and legality of the award dated 1st December, 2006, passed by the Labour Court - cum - Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for short), wherein the Tribunal while answering the reference on retrenchment of the respondent -workman (Mahadev) on 1st August, 1990, passed an award for reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. However, failure to reinstate the respondent -workman, within one month from the date of publication of the award, entitled the respondent -workman for back wages.
(2.) THE indispensable essential material facts for adjudication on the controversy raised are: that the respondent -workman was engaged on daily wages basis at Masuda Nursary with effect from 1st April, 1989 and the engagement was terminated on 1st August, 1990. The respondent -workman raised an industrial dispute assailing his retrenchment in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1947', for short), claiming reinstatement and arrears of back wages with 18% interest. The appropriate government made a reference to the Tribunal, which has been adjudicated upon vide impugned award dated 1st December, 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner -State very fairly conceded that the respondent -workman, in fact, did work for more than 240 days, but has vehemently resisted the relief of reinstatement in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. v. Gitam Singh: : (2013) 5 SCC 136. The learned counsel would further submit that in view of a catena of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the law declared in the case of Gitam Singh (supra), this Court has also rendered several decisions in the same line, and by now, it is well settled legal position that the Tribunal while exercising the judicial discretion ought to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside etc. The learned counsel further pointed out that a distinction has to be drawn in a case of engagement of a daily wager and employee holding a regular post for the purpose of relief that may be granted. Thus, the impugned award dated 1st December, 2006, directing for reinstatement of the respondent -workman with continuity of service though without back wages, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained rather compensation would have been the appropriate relief to meet the ends of justice.
(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent -workman supporting the impugned award dated 1st December, 2006, argued that the retrenchment of the respondent -workman was in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1947 and therefore, the learned Tribunal committed no error in directing for reinstatement without back wages and the wages have been made admissible only in the event the petitioner -State failed to reinstate the respondent -workman within one month of the publication of the impugned award. The learned counsel emphasized that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, is perfectly legal and valid, and called for no interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India.;