- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the award dtd.23.12.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute Case No.10/2004 Deen Mohd. V/s Managing Director, Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Jodhpur.
(2.) The petitioner workman, Deen Mohd. unfortunately died on 4.7.2013 during the pendency of this writ petition while serving the respondent - Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Jodhpur as daily rated employee having been appointed as casual labour on daily wage basis way back on 30.10.1982 at the rate of Rs.12/- per day. His employment continued upto 10.12.1989, when his services were terminated by an oral order.
(3.) On a writ petition filed by him, though the petitioner failed before the learned Single Bench of this Court, the Division Bench allowed his appeal No.405/1996 Deen Mohd. V/s State of Rajasthan and a copy of that order is placed on record as Annex.2. The relevant extract of Division Bench of order is quoted below for ready reference: "We are of the opinion that the nomenclature whether he is appointed as employee on daily wages or on contract basis is not of the essence. What is of essence is existence of relation between the employee and employer. The petitioner has been discharging the services for respondents as equipment cleaner. Initially he was drawing emoluments on daily rates basis and then he was paid monthly wages. The petitioner was directly employed under the employment of respondents for discharging the duties under his supervision at his establishment. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that relation between the petitioner and the respondent was that of an employee and employer and not an engagement on contract basis. We are of the opinion that termination of petitioner's services from the respondent's Establishment by the respondents was squarely covered by the definition of retrenchment and had to conform to the provisions of Chapter 5A of the Industrial Disputes Act. We are also not inclined that after the dispute has been raised and the matter is pending here for almost a decade to relegate the parties to get it adjudicated before the Labour Court moreover, when the facts are admitted. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has stated that in the totality of the circumstances, the appellant would not insist for back wages if he reinstated in service. In these circumstances, we allow the appeal as well as writ petition, set aside the order under appeal and also set aside the order of termination passed against the petitioner orally and direct reinstatement of the petitioner with all other consequential benefits except the benefit of any arrears of wages anterior to delay of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR GARG),J. (RAJESH BALIA),J.;