[2025:RJ-JP:6253] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3339/2002 1. Director, Women And Child Development Department, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur 2. Regional Dy. Director, Women And Child Development Department, Churu Rajasthan 3. Child Development Project Officer, Surajgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Petitioners Versus 1. Sh. Leeladhar Son Of Sh. Raghaveer Saini, Ward No. 5, Surajgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu 2. The Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur Its Presiding Officer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Gaur, Dy. GC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR No.290/1998. 2. By passing the impugned award, the Labour Court has allowed the statement of claim submitted by the respondent- workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) and his termination order dated 29.09.1994 has been quashed and set aside with a direction to the petitioner to reinstate him back in service along-with all service benefits treating him as continuing in service along-with payment of half backwages. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute was raised by the workman with the Labour Court stating therein that [2025:RJ-JP:6253] (2 of 3) [CW-3339/2002] he was appointed as Class-IV employee on the post of Watchman in the month of September, 1991 on daily wages of Rs.22/- and his services were terminated vide order dated 29.09.1994 without following the mandate contained under Section 25-F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). Learned counsel submits that a reply to the aforesaid claim was submitted by the petitioner wherein it was specifically stated that in the month of September, 1994, the workman himself left the job and abandoned his services. Learned counsel submits that there was no termination on the part of the petitioner, rather it was a case of abandonment of services on the part of the workman and this fact was overlooked when the impugned award was passed, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the workman never abandoned his services rather his services were terminated by the petitioner in utter violation of the mandate contained under Section 25-F, G and H of the Act of 1947 and without following due process of law. Learned counsel submits that the workman established on the record that he worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in the preceding year and it was found that there was violation of the mandatory provision contained under Section 25 F of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submits that a reasoned and cogent award was passed by the Labour Court with the above directions, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. Lastly, he argued that in pursuance of the aforesaid [2025:RJ-JP:6253] (3 of 3) [CW-3339/2002] award dated 20.11.1999, the petitioner was reinstated back in service with continuity and still he is continuing in service, so appropriate orders be passed. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman was engaged as Class-IV employee on the post of Watchman by the petitioner in the month of September, 1991 and he continued his services till 29.09.1994, thereafter his services were terminated. The petitioners have utterly failed to prove before the Labour Court that the services of the workman were not terminated but he himself abandoned from service. The finding of fact was recorded by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award that before passing the impugned termination order dated 29.09.1994, the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were not followed and this fact was also found to be proved that the workman has worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in the preceding year. 7. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is a reasoned and speaking order. This Court finds no error in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, which requires any interference of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/23