HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3833/2012 1. Superinternding Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department Sikar. 2. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, City Division, Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Omprakash Son of Shri Kurdaram Balai, Resident of Sultanpura, Post Niwai, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Supriya Rana for Ms. Minakshi Jain-GC For Respondent(s) : None JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/02/2025 1. A challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 21.06.2010 passed by the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur in LCR No. 72/2002 by which a direction has been issued to the petitioner to pay lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent-workman in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court with the averments that he was engaged on daily wages on 02.12.1985 and his services were terminated on 31.08.1986. Counsel submits that no documentary evidence was produced by the workman before the Labour Court that he has worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days. Counsel submits that even the dispute was (2 of 2) [CW-3833/2012] raised after a delay of 14 years but these material aspect of the matter were overlooked and the impugned award has been passed which requires interference of this Court. 3. None present on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the respondent- workman was engaged as a daily wager by the petitioner’s department on 02.12.1985 and his services were terminated by the petitioner on 31.08.1986. The Labour Court was of the view that the services of the workman were terminated without issuing any notice or without paying any amount of compensation which stands in utter violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. Looking to the fact that the respondent has established on record before the Labour Court that he has worked with the petitioner-establishment for more than 240 days and a finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court by passing reasoned order, which requires no interference of this Court, the present writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/96