- (1.) Aggrieved of the award dated 6th November, 2012, the State-petitioners have instituted the present writ application with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award.
(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for the appreciation of the controversy raised are that the respondent-workman-Ms. Seema Sharma (for short, non-petitioner No.1), was appointed as a part time employee on the post of 'Chokidar', on 14th January, 2006, in the Girls Hostel under the administrative control of the Department of Social Justice, State of Rajasthan. The respondent-workman pleaded that she was paid an amount of Rs.2600/- per month. Her employment was suddenly brought to an end on 17th June, 2010, by a verbal order without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. On an industrial dispute raised, the State Government made a reference on 19th January, 2011, to the Labour Court, Ajmer. On a consideration of the pleadings, evidence adduced and materials brought on record as well as upon hearing the representatives of the parties, the Labour Court concluded that the action of the State-petitioners in terminating the employment of the respondent-workman without affording an opportunity of hearing and without any notice, charge memo and an enquiry that too by a verbal order was illegal, arbitrary and stigmatic; of which the State-petitioners are aggrieved of.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State-petitioners Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the non-petitioner No.1 was only a part-time employee in the Girls Hostel under the administrative control of the Social Justice Department. Further, there were many complaints of dereliction in duty against the non-petitioner No.1. According to the learned counsel, the impugned award is against the facts, materials and evidence available on record. It is further asserted that no notice was required to be served before termination and no enquiry was necessary. However, the learned counsel did not dispute the fact that the non-petitioner No.1 was neither served with any notice nor she was afforded an opportunity of hearing.;