Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to challenge the award passed by the Judge, Labour court, Sriganganagar dated 19.05.2000 whereby the Judge, Labour Court set aside the order of termination dated 30.04.1990 and issued direction to the respondent department to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in service alongwith 50% backwages.
(2.) DURING pendency of this writ petition upon death of respondent workman Surendra Kumar on 17.11.2013, an application was filed for taking legal representatives of respondent workman on record. The co -ordinate Bench allowed the application for taking legal representatives of respondent No. 1 on record vide order dated 06.12.2013 and amended cause title filed by the petitioner which is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award impugned is illegal because the respondent workman was provided appointment in a scheme known as Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, therefore, obviously if an appointment is made in a particular scheme, then there is no question of applicability of Section 25FA & B of the Industrial Disputes Act because appointment was made in a particular scheme and employee in the scheme is entitled for continuity in service till scheme exists, therefore, finding given by the Judge, Labour court with regard to non -compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is against the basic principle of law because findings are perverse and illegal, therefore, the award impugned dated 19.05.2000 may be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of LRs of respondent No. 1 submits that though as per documentary evidence produced on record, the respondent workman was appointed on muster roll basis in the forest department and it is nowhere pleaded by the petitioner department that said project came to end therefore, as per Section 2(OO)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, appointment has come to an end, more so, the petitioner department took plea before the Labour court that respondent workman himself left the job, therefore, the Judge, Labour court gave finding that it is a case of noncompliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act at the time of terminating services of respondent workman.;