[2026:RJ-JP:3166-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 340/2024 Principal Medical And Health Officer, General Hospital Alwar (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Banwari Lal, R/o Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Raj.) 2. Anil Kumar Jain, Contractor, Jayaswal Bhawan, Munshi Bag, Alwar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankalp Vijay, AAAG For Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepali Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 23/01/2026 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12803/2019. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner assails the order passed by the Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court had passed an award in favour of the respondent for reinstatement and 25% of back wages from the date of termination. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submits that the respondent-workman was appointed on contract basis, and therefore, there was no occasion to interfere with the termination order. [2026:RJ-JP:3166-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-340/2024] 4. Contention of the appellant-writ petitioner of the invoking of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), as unjustified is found to be without any basis. 5. Admittedly, respondent comes within the definition of workman and appellant-writ petitioner comes within the definition of industry. The respondent was appointed and worked as a Driver from December, 1999 to 30.11.2002. There is no single contract of work from December, 1999 to 30.11.2002, Even if we presume, though, not accepted by the Labour Court that the appointment was on contract basis then too, a contractual appointment would have to come within the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act for non-interference. Since the contract was monthly, it has been extended from one month to another and continued for months together. Thus, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act would also not be attracted and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in deciding the dispute in terms of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act cannot be objected to. 6. We find that not only the provisions of Section 25-F were violated but Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act as well as Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes(Central) Rules, 1957 have also been violated, as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also taken a judicial notice of the appellant-writ petitioner for not having properly defended the case before the concerned Labour Court and has also made certain observations. The documents relating to the assertion of the respondent having been appointed as Contractor has also been [2026:RJ-JP:3166-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-340/2024] examined and found to be without any basis by the learned Single Judge. 7. We do not find any reason to differ from the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. The order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 8. Accordingly, the present special appeal writ is dismissed with the cost of Rs.20,000/- which is to be recovered from the concerned officers who were careless for not defending the case before the Labour Court. 9. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ HEENA/Shivani/06