1. The instant petition has been filed in the year 2016 by the employer-petitioner challenging the award dt. 28th April, 2003 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. The Labour Court by award dt. 28th April, 2003, has declared the termination of services of the employee to be bad as being violative of Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has made an order of reinstatement of the workman with continuity of services and payment of 50% back wages is also awarded.

2. The respondent was working as class-IV employee with the employer since July, 1990 and his services came to be terminated by order order dt. 1st June, 1995. The employee after termination of his services approached the State Government and after conciliation proceedings failed, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court as whether the employer-Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Todaraisingh, District Tonk was justified in terminating the services of the employee with effect from 1st June, 1995 and if the termination was bad, what relief was to be given to the employee concerned.

3. The employee-respondent workman pleaded in his statement of claim that he was employed in the month of July, 1990 as a Class-IV employee and his services was terminated with effect from 1st June, 1995 by oral order. The workman pleaded that he had completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and the employer had kept the junior persons in the job and further after termination of his services, new employees were also employed.

4. The Labour Court found that neither any reply to the statement of claim was filed by the employer-petitioner and in spite of last opportunity being granted on 28th November, 2002, the ex-parte proceedings were drawn.

5. The employee led his evidence by an affidavit and other documents marked as W1 to W36. The Labour Court after considering the entire evidence came to conclusion that the employee had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding one year from the date of his termination and further the junior persons were retained the principle of last come first was not followed and further appointments were given to other persons after termination of services of the petitioner. The finding of the Labour Court dt. 28th April, 2003 is reproduced hereunder:-

^^esjs ls twfu;j Jfed dk;Z dj jgs gSa rFkk esjs dks lsok ls vyx djus ds ckn Hkh Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr fd;k gSA blds vykok izkFkhZ us osru C;kSjk iaftdk dh QksVks izfr;ka is’k dh gSaA Jfed us xzke iapk;r gehjiqj dk izek.k i= is’k fd;k gS ftlls Jfed dk yxkrkj pkj ik¡p o"kZ dk;Z djuk izrhr gksrk gSA Jfed ds 'kiFk i= vkSj mlds }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr dk foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ [k.Mu ugh gSA foi{khx.k us dksbZ Dyse dk tokc Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA blls izrhr gksrk gS fd muds ikl Jfed ds Dyse dk dksbZ tokc ugha gSA Jfed ds 'kiFk i= o nLrkostkr ls lsok eqfDr ds fiNys ,d o"kZ esa Jfed }kjk 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk izrhr gksrk gSA foi{kh }kjk Jfed dks dksbZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl is ;k NVuh dk eqvkotk fn;k tkuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA blds vykok Jfed ls dfu"B Jfedksa dk dk;Z djuk vkSj izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr ds i'pkr u, Jfedksa dk yxkuk Hkh fl) gksrk gS vr% Jfed dk ;g Dyse lgh ik;k tkrk gSA**

6. The petitioner-employer did not challenge the said award till filing of the present writ petition and further the employer also did not file application to set aside ex-parte proceedings.

7. The employee-respondent was not reinstated back in service and he filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein he claimed his back wages as per the award. The Labour Court No. 2 in LCR No. 33/2003 decided the application of the employee and computed the amount of Rs. 57,526/- to be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of order dt. 27th July, 2009.

8. The employer-petitioner has filed a receipt dt. 17th February, 2016 as (Annex. 7) with the writ petition whereby payment of Rs. 87,7