VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the judgment and award dtd. 22. 11. 2004 may be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that an industrial dispute was raised by the non-petitioner. Teja Ram before the Conciliation Officer regarding his retrenchment. THE conciliation proceedings failed and a failure report was submitted by the conciliation officer before the appropriate Government. THE appropriate Government vide notification dated 6. 8. 2003 referred the matter to the Labour Court, Jodhpur for adjudication under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1947' ). The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties and the respondent- claimant filed claim petition, stating, inter alia, that he was initially appointed as sweeper on 14. 7. 1997 and he worked for three years regularly since appointment till 27. 2. 2001. On 27. 2. 2001, his services were terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947 ). It was further stated that his services have been terminated by violating the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was prayed that his termination may be declared ineffective and void and workman be reinstated back in service will full backwages. The petitioners received the copy of the statement of claim. A detailed written statement was filed denying the contentions mentioned in the claim application and it was stated that the claimant was not appointed on the post of Class IV employee. The workman was engaged on contract basis and the workman was engaged on remuneration of Rs. 800/- per month. The workman on contract was upto 31. 3. 1998. It was also alleged that at the time of appointment, the workman himself submitted an affidavit that when he would be removed from the work, he will not claim any regular appointment and will not file any case before the Court. It was also alleged that the contract of the workman was extended upto 27. 2. 2001 and thereafter in pursuance of letter dtd. 17. 1. 2001, the term of contract of the workman was not extended. It was also alleged that such contractual employees are never appointed in any manner and therefore, there is no question of any retrenchment and it was immaterial as to whether the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. After hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent-workman and directed the reinstatement of respondent workman with 25% back wages. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claimant was appointed on the contract basis and at the time of appointment, the workman himself submitted an affidavit that when he would be removed from the service, he will not file any case. It has also been alleged that the workman was appointed on contract basis and therefore, he is not a workman and provisions of Act of 1947 are not attracted in this case. It was also alleged that the workman has raised the industrial dispute after a considerable delay. It has also been alleged that in view of provisions of Section 9 and 11 of the Act of 1999, the engagement on contract and daily wage basis is prohibited. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to get the relief of reinstatement. Hence, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent workman has stated that since the impugned judgment and award does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my considered opinion, the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. The learned Labour Court has clearly recorded a finding that the respondents - workman was engaged on contract basis till 31. 3. 1998. The Department did not produce any evidence to show that the services of the respondent- workman were extended after 31. 3. 1998, meaning thereby after 31. 3. 1998 to 27. 2. 2001, the respondent -workman was not working on contract basis and during this period he has completed 240 days of service. However, before terminating his services, provisions of the Section 25 F of the Act of 1947 have not complied with. ;