STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS Vs. HAWJI MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) This intra-Court appeal by the State is directed against the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has disposed of respondent's S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2030/2007.

(3.) On 01.01.1996, the appellants appointed the respondent on daily wage for 90 days on the post of Hand Pump Mistry. He was then allowed to continue on that post even thereafter. Not only this, vide order dated 05.06.1998, appellant No.4 appointed the respondent on probation for two years in the pay scale of Rs.750-940. Later also, vide order dated 16.02.2002 the services of the respondent were regularized on the post of Hand Pump Mistry in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200. This was done pursuant to decision of the Administrative & Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti Arnod. The State Government, however, vide order dated 30.08.2002, directed appellant No.4 to terminate the services of respondent after making compliance of Section 25F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the result, the services of respondent were dispensed with vide order dated 25.09.2002, passed by appellant No.1. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court, Bhilwara vide award dated 26.05.2006, set aside the termination order dated 25.09.2002 and directed the State to reinstate him in service maintaining continuity and also to pay 50% back wages. In compliance of the said award, respondent was reinstated vide order dated 14.12.2006, but on the same day, notices under Sections 25(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act were issued to respondent and his services were again terminated. The respondent, therefore, rushed to the High Court challenging the validity of the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by appellant No.4. And by an interim order dated 11.04.2007, order of termination of respondent was stayed, as a result of which he is still continuing in service. The learned Single Judge finally held order of termination of respondent as malafide and by the impugned order has quashed the same.