Learned companynsel for the respondent supported the order.
In the claim petition the respondent workman alleged that he was employed by the appellant as watchman cum peon and his services were retrenched by the appellant illegally on 18.7.1991.
The appropriate Government referred to the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Hanumangarh.
The Labour Court also found that the reason for retrenchment as advanced by the appellant, that some amount was embezzled by the respondent workman.
As numbered above, the stand of the appellant is that there was a belated dispute raised by the respondent and on that score alone the reference has been dismissed.
The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, filed a writ petition.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent workman filed a claim petition and sought a reference of the dispute raised by him to the Labour Court.
was number established by the appellant.
It is numbered that while issuing numberice on the scope of adjudication was limited to quantum of back wages.
The Labour Court after giving an opportunity to the appellant to discuss his claim and on companysideration of evidence led by the parties came to the companyclusion that the services of the respondent workman was retrenched in violation of Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Rules, 1958 in short the Rules .
CIVIL APPEAL No.
The award in the case was made on 6.11.1997 and reinstatement was directed with back wages limited to 50 from the date of reference.
3961 OF 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, dismissing the Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Ordinance 1949.
By the impugned judgment the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
