Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the award of the learned labour court Kota by which reference made to it by the appropriate government on the question of validity of retrenchment of respondent No.1 was answered in the terms that her retrenchment was not valid and that she would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity in service with 50% back wages.
(3.) Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel argued that respondents-workman was never employed by the petitioner and that she was merely engaged in the work of cleaning as a part time worker on consolidated payment of Rs. 150/- per month which was sort of job work. She in cross-examination before the labour court admitted that no appointment order was ever issued to her. There was no vacant sanctioned post so as continue her. In fact, she was not engaged against any such vacant sanctioned post. The District Education Officer was never her appointing authority nor the Principal of the Government Primary School Sakatpura obtained approval for her appointment. Learned Judge, labour court ought not to have directed the district education officer to reinstate her in service. Even otherwise, respondent-workman did not complete 240 days of service in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of her retrenchment by the petitioner. She worked only for few days in between and that too in broken spells. Learned counsel also argued that part time employee like the respondent No.1 could not be treated as a workman in the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act").;