JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the award dated 23.11.2002 passed by the respondent No.1 Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in C.I.T.R. No.1/1999 be quashed and set aside and he also prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits including back wages along with interest @ 12% per annum and further prayed for any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem-fit just and proper. 2. The petitioner has set up his case that the petitioner worked with the respondent No.2 Bank from 6.8.1995 to 3.6.1997 from which date his services were terminated by the respondent No.2. 3. Aggrieved by the illegal termination/retrenchment of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the appropriate Government i.e. Central Government and the Central Government referred the said matter to the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer to decide the issue of illegal termination of the petitioner dated 3.06.1997. 4. The statement of claim was filed by the petitioner in which it was stated that he was working in the respondent No.2 Bank on the post of Class-IV employee and paid Rs.400/- per month. He joined on 6.8.1995 and when the petitioner claimed regular wages of Class-IV employee and his regularisation then management with prejudice mind retrenched the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 3.6.1997. According to the petitioner he worked for more than 240 days. It was further stated that his retrenchment is in violation of the 25(f) and 25(n) of the Act and no notice or compensation was paid at the time of retrenchment nor consent of any competent authority was taken. 5. The reply to the statement of claim was filed by the respondent No.2 before the labour Court, Ajmer. The sum and substance of reply is that the petitioner was never employed by the respondent bank nor any work of Class-IV employee was taken. It was alleged that the bank has given a contract for installing and looking after the Generator of one Sajjan Tent House and for that purpose the petitioner was employed by the Sajjan Tent House and the petitioner was regularly working on the said generator which was provided by the Contractor for the use of Bank. It was alleged that the bank has given a contract for installing and looking after the Generator of one Sajjan Tent House and for that purpose the petitioner was employed by the Sajjan Tent House and the petitioner was regularly working on the said generator which was provided by the Contractor for the use of Bank. It was further alleged that if Sajjan Tent House has terminated the services of the petitioner, the respondent-bank is not at all responsible. 6. The learned Labour Court, Ajmer after hearing both the parties and the material made available to him vide impugned award dated 23.11.2002 decided against the petitioner holding that the petitioner has not proved that he worked continuously and uninterrupted for 240 days in the past 12 months from the date of retrenchment. 7. But the learned labour Court, Ajmer decided the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner and this issue clarified that the petitioner was the employee of respondent No.2. 8. For these reasons, I remit (back) the matter to the learned labour court, Ajmer to decide the case afresh and order dated 23.11.2002 passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. 9. A certified copy of this judgment is also given to the learned Labour Court, Ajmer. 10. Both the patties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court, Ajmer on 27th of March, 2008. The learned Labour Court. Ajmer is further directed to decide the matter within two months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 11. Hence, this petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of as above. *******