ORDER :

1. The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant-employer-Bank challenging the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4073/2000 filed by the appellant-Bank challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Central Government), Jaipur (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’), whereby termination of the respondent No.2-employee (hereinafter ‘respondent-employee’) was found to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act of 1947’).

2. This case has a checkered history and narration of all the facts in subsequent paras would reveal the same:-

(I) The respondent-employee was working as Peon with the appellant-Bank from 03.08.1987 and his services came to be retrenched w.e.f. 01.02.1996.

(II) The respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute after reference being made by the Government and the Tribunal passed an award dated 03.03.2000.

(III) The Tribunal while considering the various pleas raised on behalf of the workman-employee came to conclusion that the services of the respondent-employee were terminated in violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The Tribunal further came to conclusion that there were two posts of Peon, which were available for the appointment with the employer at the time of retrenchment of services of the respondent-employee and only on account of joining of one person on transfer basis, services of the respondent-employee could not have been terminated without following the due process of law. The operative portion of the award is quoted as under:-

^^izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk mYya?ku dj dh xbZ gSA vr% mldh lsok lekfIr voS/k o vuqfpr ik;h tkrh gSA og cSad dh lsok esa fiNys osru lfgr iqu% vkus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA izkFkhZ fujUrj lsok esa ekuk tk,xkA cSad dh mDr 'kk[kk esa fjDr in u gksus dh n'kk esa vFkok fu;fer p;fur vH;FkhZ ds fu;qfDr gksus ij in fjDr u jgus dh n'kk es izkFkhZ dh lsok,s vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk dj lekIr djus ds fy;s cSad Lora= gksxkA
iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds varZxr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk;A^^

3. The appellant-employer feeling aggrieved against the award passed by the Tribunal filed, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4073/2000 and learned Single Judge, vide order dated 17.08.2005, dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant-employer and as such, the award passed by the Tribunal was upheld.

4. The appellant-employer preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.952/2006 and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.07.2015, remanded the matter back to learned Single Judge, as the order of the Single Bench was treated to be cryptic and no reasons were assigned in dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant-employer.

5. Learned Single Judge, after remand being made by the Division Bench, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-employer. Learned Single Judge has found that only on account of temporary status of the respondent-employee, the provisions contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 will not be applicable and the retrenchment of even temporary employee will be covered under the definition of ‘retrenchment’.

6. Learned Single Judge further found that only on account of regularly selected candidate made available with the employer, services of even temporary employee could not have been dispensed with and the requirement of mandatory provision contained in Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, was required to be complied with.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-employer-Bank Mr.Akhil Simlote has made the following submissions:-

(1) The finding of the Tribunal as well as of learned Single Judge while treating the transfer of the respondent-employee as not a regular mode of selection, is perverse finding and as such, right of the appellant-employer cannot be taken awa