MADAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Avoiding unnecessary details, the facts appertain to the present case are that the petitioners were appointed as light motor vehicle drivers with the respondents, until 30.06.2002; when their services were brought to an abrupt end, by the respondents. The petitioner raised an Industrial dispute, which was referred by the appropriate State Government, for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner. The reference so made by the State Government culminated in the order dated 18.04.2012, whereby the termination of the petitioners' service was found illegal and the stand/defence of the respondents that since the project had completed, the requirement of observing mandate of Sec. 25-G Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not necessary had been repelled. The court below recorded a finding that petitioners' employment does not fall within the exception carved out in clause (bb) of 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In other words the Labour Court held that the employment in question was not contractual employment and as such compliance of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly encapsulated in 25 F and 25 G was indispensable. In light of such finding, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of all the workmen, as follows :- iapkV ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) The above referred award dated 18.04.2012, was challenged by the respondents, in a writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1097/2012, which was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 07.12.2012.

(3.) While rejecting the writ petition filed by the employer-respondent herein, their stance that the employment in question was fixed term employment was categorically rejected. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by this Court is reproduced hereunder :- It is also required to be observed that question of facts cannot be taken into consideration while deciding writ petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Here, in this case, the petitioner employer is challenging the validity of award on factual aspect of the matter that appointment was for fixed term but there is, in fact, no evidence on record to prove the said fact. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the award impugned in this writ petition.