Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the award dated 05.08.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur in labour case No. 202/1995 and its publication by the appropriate Government under Section 17 of the Act of 1947 by the notification dated 30.08.1999. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner under an order dated 28.08.1984 passed by the Senior Deputy District Education Officer (Girls) Udaipur was employed as a Class IV employee in the department of Education and was posted at Government Girls Secondary School Lawa Sardargarh. The order of appointment was issued as a consequence of a regular selection proceedings for appointment of Class IV employee. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the office of the District Employment Exchange, Udaipur and thereafter, the petitioner faced an interview and was selected as a Class IV employee but appointment was given to her on part time basis at the consolidated salary of Rs. 234/-per month. 4. By an order dated 11.01.1988 passed by the Deputy District Education Officer (Girls), Udaipur, the services of the petitioner were put to an end being not satisfactory. The petitioner by raising an industrial dispute before the competent Conciliation Officer challenged the validity of the order dated 11.01.1988 which ultimately culminated in an industrial dispute in following terms: ÞD;k ftyk fk{kk vf /kdkjh A Nk=k laLFkk,¡ A mn;iqj A jkt-A }kjk prqFkZ Js.kh nSfud osru HkksxhA oh iRuh Jh eqjyh/kj uxkjph dh lsvakdkyhu A deZpkjh Jherh dkSkY;k nsok i`Fkd fnukad 11-01-1988 ls djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA ;fn ugha rks og fdl jkgr ,oa jkf k dks ikus dh vf /kdkjh gSaß 5. The dispute was referred to labour Court Udaipur for its adjudication by a notification dated 11.09.1995. 6. The petitioner pursuant to the reference made by the appropriate Government filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court, Udaipur stating therein that she was in continuous employment of the respondent employer from the date of initial appointment i.e., on 28.08.1984 to 11.01.1988. She further stated that her services were put to an end without holding any disciplinary proceedings or even without adhering the principles of natural justice by the respondents. 7. She further stated that her services were put to an end without holding any disciplinary proceedings or even without adhering the principles of natural justice by the respondents. 7. A return to the claim was filed by the respondent employer stating therein that the petitioner was working as a part time employee and during the service tenure, her work was not satisfactory to the extent that she misbehaved with teachers and other staff of the school where she was posted. It was also stated that petitioner was subjected to three transfers during her short tenure of service because of her ill-attitude while discharging duties. While adjudicating the dispute, an affidavit sworn in by the petitioner was taken on record as her statement in chief and she was cross examined by the representative of the respondent department. On behalf of the employer, an affidavit sworn in by Shri Kamal Pokharna, Additional District Education Officer was taken on record and he was allowed to be cross examined by the representative of the employee. Shri Kamal Pokharna in his cross examination stated in unequivocal terms that no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and also no notice for taking action was given as she was working as a part time Class IV employee. Shri Kamal Pokharna admitted in the cross examination that part time employee is required to remain at school at the time of its opening and closing, beside the fact that a part time employee is required to work for about six hours in a day. 8. The labour Court, Udaipur by its award dated 05.08.1999 held that the attitude of the petitioner was not proper while discharging her duties. She was working on part time basis and her appointment was not made in accordance with rules. She was working in temporary capacity and as such, there was no need to adhere the principles of natural justice while putting her services to an end. The labour Court for the reasons mentioned above answered the reference in negative by holding the termination of the petitioner from services as just and proper, however, a sum of Rs. 3,000/-was allowed to the petitioner on the count that no compensation in lieu of the notice was given to her before putting her services to an end. The labour Court for the reasons mentioned above answered the reference in negative by holding the termination of the petitioner from services as just and proper, however, a sum of Rs. 3,000/-was allowed to the petitioner on the count that no compensation in lieu of the notice was given to her before putting her services to an end. The award dated 05.08.1999 acquired finality by its publication under Section 17 of the Act of 1947 vide notification dated 30.08.1999. 9. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the award and its publication under the notification dated 30.08.1999. 10. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents defending the award passed by the labour Court. The respondents stated that the petitioner never discharged her duties satisfactorily and she was in habit of indulging herself in ill-treatment with co-employees. It is also stated that number of complaints were received with regard to ill-treatment of the petitioner to the extent that one Smt. Mohini Devi filed a complaint against the petitioner on basis of which a criminal case was lodged for commission of an offence under Sections 332 and 353 IPC and the petitioner was ultimately convicted by an order dated 08.05.1996. 11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 12.The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance with the Rules as the name of the petitioner was sponsored for appointment by the office of District Employment Officer. The application submitted by her was scrutinised and she was subjected to an interview. After facing the selection procedure, the appointment was given to the petitioner as Class IV employee, though on consolidated salary and by designating her as part time Class IV employee. 13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the petitioner was required to remain present in school at the time of opening as well as closing and she was required to work in school for a period of six hours, her designation as part time Class IV employee in fact is mis-nomar. For all purposes, she was required to be treated as a Class IV employee under Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1963). In view of it, it was obligatory upon the respondents to adhere the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 while taking disciplinary action against her. Learned Counsel submitted that the order whereby the services of the petitioner were discontinued in fact is stigmatic and, therefore, the discontinuation from service is nothing but removal which could not be passed without adhering the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. 14. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if it is assumed that petitioner was working in the capacity of a part time employee, even then minimum requirement before discontinuing from service was to adhere the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of hearing. No such opportunity was afforded to her by the respondents. 15. Per contra, it is stated by Shri B.L. Tiwari, learned Dy. Government Advocate that the petitioner was working as a part time employee and such a part time employee is not required to be subjected to the provisions of the Rules of 1958. He has further stated that in view of the statement given by the petitioner herself and on basis of other evidences available on record, conduct of the petitioner was not like becoming a Government servant. He has further stated that the petitioners conviction subsequently by Court of competent criminal jurisdiction, proves it well that she was guilty of misconduct. In these circumstances, whatever action taken by the respondents by putting her services to an end was just, valid and the learned Labour Court committed no error which may warrant interference of this Court. 16. From perusal of the order of appointment of the petitioner, it is apparent that her candidature was sponsored by the District Employment Office for employment in the Department of Education of Government of Rajasthan as Class IV employee. The candidature of the petitioner was scrutinised by the respondents and she was subjected to an interview by undergoing the selection procedure. Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963 prescribes procedure for direct recruitment. The candidature of the petitioner was scrutinised by the respondents and she was subjected to an interview by undergoing the selection procedure. Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963 prescribes procedure for direct recruitment. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1963 provides that the application for direct recruitment to the post in service shall be invited by the appointing authority from the persons whose names have been registered in employment exchange by advertising vacancies to be filled in such manner as may be deemed fit. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1963 provides that the appointing authority shall scrutinise the applications received and required as many candidates qualified for appointment under the Rules as seem to him desirable to appear before him for interview. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1963 provides that the appointing authority shall prepare a list of candidates whom he considers suitable for appointment to the posts concerned, arrange in order of merit and appoint them in the same order subject to provisions of Rule 8. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1963 pertains to nationality of candidates desirable for appointment. For regular appointment under the Rules of 1963 a person desirous is required to undergo the selection procedure referred above. 17. From perusal of the procedure prescribed, it is apparent that the same procedure was adhered by the respondents while giving appointment to the petitioner. It is also a position admitted that the services of the petitioner were utilised by the respondents during the entire school hours. 18. In view of it, the petitioner was wrongly treated as a part time employee, in fact she was working as regular Class IV employee with the respondents. The services of such a Class-IV employee are governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Class IV Employee) Rules, 1963 supplemented with the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The services of the petitioner were put to an end looking to her conduct and on basis of the allegation of misconduct. No enquiry as required under the Rules of 1958 was conducted by the respondents before passing the order Annexure-4 dated 11.01.1988. It is the position admitted that the services of the petitioner were put to an end by the respondents as the same being found unsatisfactory. No enquiry as required under the Rules of 1958 was conducted by the respondents before passing the order Annexure-4 dated 11.01.1988. It is the position admitted that the services of the petitioner were put to an end by the respondents as the same being found unsatisfactory. The respondents in unequivocal terms came forward with a case that number of complaints were received against the petitioner, she was in habit of abusing co-employees. No notice before terminating her from service was given looking to her conduct on basis of these admitted facts. It is clear that a reasonable opportunity for defence was not given to the petitioner, therefore, the order terminating the petitioner from services is certainly bad in the eye of law. The Labour Court, erred while holding that no opportunity to defence was required to be given to the petitioner while putting her services to an end. The Court below failed to appreciate that in fact the termination of the petitioner was not simplicitor but was stigmatic and punitive and an order punitive in nature, could not be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of defence. 19. The Labour Court also failed to appreciate that even a workman who is not a civil servant is required to be dealt with fairly and employer is required to adhere the principles of natural justice while taking punitive action against such workman. In the present case, the admitted position is that the services of the petitioner were put to an end due to allegation of misconduct without giving any notice of hearing for placing her version before the employer. The principles of natural justice are like golden thread in service jurisprudence and the violation of same makes the action taken void ab initio. 20. In view of it, the award impugned passed by the Labour Court is perverse and the same deserves to be quashed. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner accordingly succeeds. The impugned order dated 05.08.1999 passed by the labour Court, Udaipur and its subsequent publication by the appropriate Government under the notification dated 30.08.1999 are hereby quashed. The order dated 11.01.1988 is also hereby quashed. The petitioner is declared entitled to be reinstated in service. However, she shall not be entitled for back-wages for the period commencing from the date of her termination to the date when she raised industrial dispute. The order dated 11.01.1988 is also hereby quashed. The petitioner is declared entitled to be reinstated in service. However, she shall not be entitled for back-wages for the period commencing from the date of her termination to the date when she raised industrial dispute. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous employment of the employer from the date of initial appointment as a Class IV employee. 21. No order as to costs