VYAS, J. - (1.) A common question is involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, they are decided by this common order.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the instant petitions are that the Labour Department made a reference to the Labour Court, Udaipur. On receiving the reference, the Labour Court, Udaipur issued notices to the parties. On receiving notices, respondents submitted their statements of claim and the petitioner-department submitted replies to the said statements of claim. It is claimed by the respondents that before terminating their services, one month's notice or wages of one month or compensation have not been given to them. It is also claimed that the persons appointed after them are still working with the Telecommunications Department. Before the Labour Court, Udaipur, statements of claim were submitted along with the respective affidavits and the Department submitted replies to the aforesaid statements claims, supported by the affidavits. The respondents as well as Officer- in-Charge of the Department were cross examined before the Labour Court, Udaipur. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and considering the documents produced by the respective parties, the learned Labour Court, Udaipur passed the award dated 27. 8. 2004, against which the instant petitions have been preferred by the Telecommunication Department, Udaipur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents were appointed on the post of Helper on 1. 2. 1978 and 1. 8. 1987 respectively, by the Telecommunications Department. On 6. 9. 1995, their services were terminated. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have not worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year. Therefore, their services have rightly been terminated by the petitioner Department.
(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Labour Court, Udaipur has not appreciated the material available on record. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Labour Court has given an incorrect finding that both the respondent Girdhari Lal and Ram Singh have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Department has given complete account of working days of the respondents, but the learned Labour Court has not considered the same in its right perspective and has wrongly awarded each of the respondents an amount of Rs. 45,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. ;