B.J. Shethna, J.
1. The peetitioners State of Rajasthan and its Assistant Engineer have challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 5.12.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the Labour Court ordered the petitioners to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 50% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 28.2.1996.
2. Learned Counsel Shri Kotwani for the petitioners firstly submitted that the Labour Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the services of respondent workman was terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that the respondent workman himself left the job and it is a case of abandonment of service. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court be set aside.
3. Whether the workman had left the job on his own or his services were terminated in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is a pure question of fact which cannot be gone into and decided by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Though this petition is labelled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of which is very narrow and limited as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim reported in : [1984]1SCR211 .
4. Mr. Kotwani then submitted that the Labour Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the workman had completed 240 working days in one calander year. He submitted that for arriving at this conclusion the Labour Court has drawn adverse inference against the petitioners only because for some or the other reasons they could not produce muster roll before the Labour Court. He submitted that he is prepared to produce the muster roll before this Court for correct adjudication of the matter. The petitioners had ample opportunities to produce the muster roll in their defence, but for the reasons best known to them they did not produce the muster roll before the Labour Court. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court was fully justified in drawing adverse inference. When the petitioners had opportunity to produce such muster roll before the Labour Court and if they failed to avail of that opportunity then for the first time in writ jurisdiction they cannot be permitted to produce such muster roll for the reason that the services of the respondent workman was unceremoniously terminated by them in 1992 and after the period of lapse of 9 years. If this request to produce the muster roll in this writ petition is granted then it would be adding to the agony of respondent workman. Hence, this request is also rejected.
5. Mr. Kotwani then submitted that the respondent workman himself had abandoned the services, therefore, there was a delay in making reference of 4 years and this part of the matter was not taken into consideration by the Labour Court. Here also Mr. Kotwani is wrong. It is true that reference was made only on 28.2.1996, but the respondent workman had already started conciliation proceedings way back in 1993. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent workman was not vigilant. Infact, while passing the award in favour of respondent workman, the Labour Court was little bit harsh to the respondent workman in awarding only 50% back wages and that too from the date of reference and not from the date of termination. Be that as it may. When the workman had not thought it fit to challenge the said award then I would not like to express any opinion about this. It is suffice to say that the order passed by the Labour Court reinstating the respondent workman in service with 50% back wages w.e.f. the date of reference i.e. 28.2.1996 and not from the date of termination cannot be said to be unjust or illegal which calls for interference by this Court in its super visionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Infact, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and it does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
7. At this stage, Mr. Kotwani submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in : [1997]3SCR368 be considered and dealt with. That was a case of daily wager and the case was regarding completion of work. In absence of work, on facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the workman had no right to be reinstated in service. I fail to understand that how this judgment will have any application to the facts of present case. In the instant case, the point regarding completion of, work was never pressed into service by the petitioners before the Labour Court, therefore, there is no finding whatsoever in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. However, an attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to submit that this point was specifically argued. When asked, Mr. Kotwani pointed out ground No. (iii) of the petition. This ground is totally different. What is stated in ground (iii) is that it was the specific case of the petitioner Department before the Labour Court and in their reply. It is not sufficient that one may raise number of contentions in reply, but the requirement of law is that the contentions raised in reply must be argued and the attention of the concerned court must be drawn and the presiding officer of the court must be called upon to deal with decide such contentions. If they are not argued then petitioners cannot be permitted to raise such contentions for the first time in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of the above discussion, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and accordingly it fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.