SHIV SHANKER Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner workman, he is challenging the validity of the award dated 03.1.2000 whereby while deciding the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner workman, the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur held that the petitioner who was working as Ardli on urgent temporary basis in the office of the Junior Manager (Transport) is not workman as per the definition given in the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the Judge, Labour Court held that the petitioner worked for 17 months as Ardli w.e.f. 12.12.1988 to 18.5.1990 but domestic servant/Ardli cannot be termed as workman and rejected the plea of the petitioner to quash the termination order but the said finding is not in consonance with law because in case of Ishwar Singh Vs. Raj. State Electricity Board, 2001 3 WLC(Raj) 661, the Full Bench of this Court held in para 39 that a person employed in an industry in connection with the operations incidental to the main industry should be treated workman, therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, the award impugned is not sustainable in law, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed and the retrenchment of the petitioner workman from service w.e.f. 18.5.1990 may kindly be declared illegal and a direction may be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition because he was engaged on contract basis as Ardli and remuneration was paid to him from contingency account, therefore, the award impugned does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, more so, it has been passed after due consideration of law.