[2025:RJ-JP:22542] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8213/2002 Ram Singh S/o Pachuram Aged about 32 years R/o Village Ronija Jat Tehsil Laxmangarh DIstt. Alwar (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Judge Labour Court Bharatpur Rajasthan 2. Branch Secretary Alwar Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Branch Laxmangarh Distt. Alwar (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.N. Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 28/05/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 29.09.1995 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur (Camp Alwar) (for brevity, 'learned Labour Court') in LCR No.54/1991 whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner-workman (for brevity, 'workman'), his statement of claim has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed a statement of claim stating therein that he was appointed as a Class IV Employee with the respondent no.2/employer (for brevity 'employer') on 01.06.1985 and worked as such till 30.06.1989; but, his services were retrenched in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'Act of 1947'). It was, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits.. The employer, in its reply, denying the averments made in the statement of claim, submitted that the workman was never employed as a Class IV Employee; rather, he was engaged on daily [2025:RJ-JP:22542] (2 of 3) [CW-8213/2002] wages basis as a contractual employee. It was further submitted that he did not render the service for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. Violation of provisions of the Act of 1947 was denied. The learned Labour Court after appreciating the rival contentions of the respective parties and the evidence led by them, vide award impugned dated 29.09.1995, dismissed the statement of claim. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the workman made twofold submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate that he was appointed as a Class IV Employee and not as a daily wager. Next, he contended that the learned Labour Court failed to consider that after terminating his services, S/Shri Hardayal and Prabhu Dayal were appointed as the Class IV Employee ignoring his candidature resulting into violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 29.09.1995 be quashed and set aside and the employer be directed to reinstate him back in service with consequential benefits. Per contra, learned counsel for the employer, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 29.09.1995, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While answering the reference against the workman and dismissing his statement of claim, the learned Labour Court has held that the workman was employed as daily wager and did not render the services for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. It was further observed that he has failed to establish that any [2025:RJ-JP:22542] (3 of 3) [CW-8213/2002] workman of his category was appointed after retrenching his services and therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. Contentions of learned counsel for the workman that he appointed as a Class IV Employee has no merit inasmuch as, the learned Labour Court has, after appreciating the appointment orders submitted by the workman himself as Ex. 21 to Ex. 28, recorded a categorical finding that he was appointed as daily wager on a fixed contractual period and was never appointed as the Class IV Employee. Even the learned counsel for the workman does not dispute the validity of the appointment orders Ex. 21 to Ex. 28 placed by him on record before the learned Labour Court. Insofar as second submission of the learned counsel for the workman qua violation of Section 25G is concerned, suffice it to say that the learned Labour Court has held that S/Shri Hardayal and Prabhu Dayal were appointed as the Class IV Employee whereas, the workman was never so engaged rather, he was engaged on daily wages basis. Since, learned counsel for the workman has failed to satisfy this Court that award of the learned Labour Court dated 29.09.1995 suffers from any such illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/30