- (1.) THE subject matter of assailment in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 12.7.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8668/2013 negating the impeachment of the award dated 17.8.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner in Reference Case No. 49/2000.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate General.
(3.) THE skeletal facts are that the appellants/writ petitioners were appointed as Sweeper (Class IV employee) with the respondent Municipal Council on 1.1.1995 on daily wage basis and as alleged by them, their services were terminated verbally on and from 31.8.1995. Contending that meanwhile though they having completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding 31.8.1995, the respondent Council did do away with their services without complying with the mandatory requirements of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, they raised an industrial dispute, which was eventually referred to the learned Labour Court, Bikaner as above. While they reiterated these averments before the learned Labour Court, the respondent Council in its written statement in substance asserted that the appellants/writ petitioners had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year prior to 31.8.1995 as claimed. According to the respondent Council, they were appointed on recommendation of one ward member and their services stood terminated after April, 1995. In the reference proceedings, both sides adduced evidence, oral and documentary and eventually, by the award referred to hereinabove, the learned Labour Court, Bikaner answered the reference in the negative holding that the appellants/writ petitioners had failed to prove that they had served for a period of 240 days or above in a calendar year prior to 31.8.1995 and that thus, the termination of their services did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. It held with reference to the evidence on record that it was not established that the appellants/writ petitioners had been rendering their services after April, 1995 and it was not proved as well that their services were terminated on and from 31.8.1995. Being aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court for redress.;