JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The petitioners-employer have filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 10th August,2018 passed by the Labour Court - I, Jaipur.

2. The Labour Court, while passing the award, has declared that services of the respondent-workman were illegally terminated on 9th February,2002 and as such, he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service and further, he is entitled for 50% back-wages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned award has been passed on a wrong premise, as employment of the respondent-employee was contractual in nature.

4. Learned counsel submitted that definition contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short "the ID Act") of "retrenchment" means termination of the workman by employer but it excludes termination of services of workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein.

5. Learned counsel submitted that while filing reply to the statement of claim, it was pleaded by the petitioners-employer that appointment of the respondent-workman was initially by way of agreement from 2nd August,2000 to 1st February,2001. The second agreement was from 6th February,2001 to 5th August,2001 and the third agreement was from 10th August,2001 and 9th February,2002.

6. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the specific averment made in reply to the statement of claim, appointment of the respondent-employee was contractual in nature and as per the definition contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, the respondent-employee has wrongly been given benefit of violation of Section 25F of the ID Act.

7. Learned counsel submitted that while discussing the issue with regard to nature of employment of the respondent-employee, the Labour Court has erred in recording finding that respondent-employee was not employed on contract basis.

8. Learned counsel submitted that employment of the respondent-employee was through a society and terms of the agreement clearly provided a fixed remuneration of Rs.2000/- per month.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court ought to have considered the status of respondent-employee as per the terms and conditions of his appointment through Society and the Labour Court without taking into account, such important aspect of the matter, has passed the impugned award.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court has erred in giving its finding that the respondent-employee is also entitled for the back-wages of 50% on all his salary and other consequential benefits from the date of termination of his services.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee Mr.Akhil Simlote, at the outset, has submitted that this Court can modify the award, if it finds that the back-wages has not been awarded in proper manner by the Labour Court.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as merits of the case are concerned, on which, the award has been passed, do not require any interference by this Court as the Labour Court has considered the entire evidence.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has taken into account the important fact of non-producing the entire record relating to employment of the respondent-employee.

14. Learned counsel submitted that neither any agreement was produced nor any attendance register was produced and inspite of specific direction given by the Labour Court, the employer did not produce the relevant record and as such, the adverse inference was to be drawn against the employer and the same has been done by the Labour Court.

15. Learned counsel further submitted that the witness, who was examined on behalf of the employer, also did not narrate anything about status of the respondent-employee and further, the said witness did not file any document to show the status of respondent-empl