Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED of the award dated 24th of June, 2008, passed by the Labour Court -I, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for the following relief(s): - - "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the present writ petition, to quash and set aside the order dated 24.06.2008 and further the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner -workman aggrieved of termination of his employment on 4th June, 1999, by the respondent -employer raised an industrial dispute. On a reference made by the State Government, the Labour Court -I, Jaipur, taking into consideration the statement of claim, response filed to it on behalf of the respondent -employer, evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on record; made the impugned award in negative against the petitioner -workman holding the termination of employment of the petitioner -workman as legal and valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court, are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the materials available on record. It is pleaded case of the petitioner -workman that his appointment was made on temporary basis as Tractor Driver on 1st May, 1997. The services of the petitioner -workman were terminated on 4th June, 1999, without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation, though there were vacancies in existence.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court to the effect that the case of the termination of employment of the petitioner -workman was not within the ambit of the definition of 'retrenchment' as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947'), is perverse as well as violative of Section 25 -F, G and H of the Act of 1947. Referring to the statement deposed by Ram Lal Meena, who appeared as a witness on behalf of the respondent -employer, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner -workman worked with effect from 10th April, 1998 to April, 1999, and not with effect from 7th May, 1997 to 31st May, 1997. Moreover, in the sanction letter, the word 'contract' was nowhere mentioned. Thus, the Labour Court fell in gross error while arriving at the findings on the basis of testimony deposed by Ram Lal Meena. The attendance -sheets clearly reflected that the petitioner -workman continued to work with the respondent -employer upto 4th June, 1999.;