[2025:RJ-JP:31465] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4320/2006 Jeevan Ram Jat S/o Shri Gulabram aged about 36 years R/o Village Dujod District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Transport Department, Jaipur. 2. Regional Transport Officer, Sikar. 3. Sikar Ex-Serviceman Welfare Operative Society Limited, Sikar. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2440/2004 Jeevan Ram S/o Shri Gulla Ram, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Dujot District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1.Judge, Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur 2.State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Tourism, Art And Culture Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj. 3.Director, Tourism, Art And Culture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal Sr. Adv. For Mr. Mahendra Shah in 4320/2006 & 2440/2004 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aayush Mall Dy.G.C in 2440/2004 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4320/2006:- 1. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner does not possess any appointment order or any termination order. It has also been admitted that the [2025:RJ-JP:31465] (2 of 4) [CW-4320/2006] petitioner was never appointed on substantive basis pursuant to any selection process under the Rules. 2. Under these circumstances, in absence of any statutory right to hold the post, the remedy of writ petition under Article 226 cannot be availed by the petitioner. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as not maintainable however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, if so applicable. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2440/2004:- 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed award dated 15.10.2003 passed by learned Labour Court Ist, Jaipur whereby the reference made by the appropriate Government in respect of alleged termination of the petitioner, has been answered against the workman. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he was engaged on consolidated wages @ Rs.275 per month on 10.09.1992, however, without giving any notice, his services were terminated on 23.08.1993. As per the petitioner, he had already completed more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination therefore, his termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "Act of 1947"). 3. Learned counsel submits that feeling aggrieved by the termination, the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner, [2025:RJ-JP:31465] (3 of 4) [CW-4320/2006] which was ultimately referred to the Court below for adjudication however, by giving perverse finding, the award has been passed and reference has been answered against the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while defending the award dated 15.10.2003 submits that learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order after meticulously examining pleadings of the parties, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. The petitioner was appointed for a particular project of shifting library and after completion of work of shifting library, there was no requirement of his continuance and therefore, the matter is covered by the provisions of Section 2(00)(bb) of the Act, 1947 discontinuance of service of the petitioner cannot be termed as retrenchment, therefore, there was no requirement whatsoever to give any notice or opportunity of hearing as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. I find that learned Tribunal has meticulously analysed the evidence led by both the parties and after examining the statements of the witnesses as well as Exhibits M1 and M2, has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was engaged on part time basis only for the work of shifting of library and after completion of such work, there was no requirement. Hence, the alleged termination does not come within the purview of retrenchment and falls within the ambit of Section 2(00)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, there is no illegality or [2025:RJ-JP:31465] (4 of 4) [CW-4320/2006] infirmity in the impugned award and the same does not call for any interference. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/53-54