VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. - (1.) THE instant intra -court appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant/respondent/workman (for short, 'the appellant/workman') is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B Civil Writ Petition No.911/1997. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ application filed by the non -appellant/petitioner/Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (for short, 'the respondent/employer') against the award dated 25th January, 1996 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur in Labour Court Reference Case (LCR) Number 275/1991.
(2.) SHORN off the unnecessary details, the material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are : That in the aforesaid LCR Case Number 275/1991, the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur, adjudicated on the reference made by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). The reference reads thus: - It is pleaded case of the appellant/workman that he was initially appointed on 1st September, 1989 in Sub -Division -II of Public Works Department (B&R), Bharatpur. His services were terminated with effect from 31st May, 1990, by a verbal order for which he raised an industrial dispute, leading to award dated 25th January, 1996; holding the 'retrenchment' of the appellant/workman, violative of Section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947, for retention of junior person and for employment of fresh hands. The learned Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of the appellant/workman with continuity of service and full back wages. The respondent/employer aggrieved of the impugned award dated 25th January, 1996; preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.911/1997 before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2001 quashed and set aside the award dated 25th January, 1996.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant/workman challenging the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge; argued that the learned Single Judge committed grave illegality and error of law in setting aside the award dated 25th January, 1996. Further, the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are perverse for the reason that the counsel for the appellant/workman never admitted the fact that the appellant/workman was engaged on daily wages basis from time to time though a finding has been recorded to that effect. The learned counsel further contended that the submissions were advanced on the basis of contents of paragraph 6 to 12 of the award and he did not admit any of the documents. Moreover, neither the documents were placed with the memo of the writ application nor the record of the learned Labour Court was summoned by the learned Single Judge.;