Phool Singh Saini vs State of Rajasthan And Ors

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 01.03.1990. The petitioner had approached the

Labour Court, Bharatpur and by the award dated 19.08.2003, termination order dated 01.03.1990 was found to be illegal and direction was given to

reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and further to pay 25% back-wages from October, 1990.

Learned counsel further submitted that employer preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4531/2004 (Urban Improvement Trust vs. Labour Court &

Anr.) before this Court and vide order dated 19.07.2017, the writ petition was dismissed and further the Court had observed that other workmen who

were appointed at later point of time were declared semi-permanent and permanent on completion of 10 years of service and the same benefit was

required to be extended to the petitioner as well. The Court further ordered that consequential benefits from the award dated 19.08.2003 were also

required to be given to the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated back in service in October, 2016, however, the

benefits as per award as well as the order passed by the High Court, were not given and the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing S.B. Civil

Contempt Petition No.93/2019 and the same is still pending.

Learned counsel submitted that now by the impugned order dated 31.03.2020, the petitioner has been retrenched from service by invoking provision of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by making payment of notice period and compensation.

Learned counsel submitted that instead of making compliance of the award as well as the order passed by the High Court, the impugned order has

been passed which is ex-facie arbitrary and in gross violation of the directions of the two Courts.

Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application, returnable on 10.08.2020. Notices be given 'dasti', if prayed.

In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated 31.03.2020 shall remain stayed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to

continue as he was continuing prior to passing of the order dated 31.03.2020.