JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned award dated 28th April, 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, Camp Alwar, whereby the Labour Court recorded a finding that there was no relationship of 'master and servant' in between the employer Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B. (Rural) Mandal, Ramgarh, Alwar and the workman Mangal Singh and, as such, the retrenchment of the workman by the employer is proper and valid and the workman is not entitled for any relief. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner workman was appointed as orderly with effect from 2nd June, 1980 and he worked up-to 31st May, 1983 and thereafter without any notice or reason and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the services of the petitioner workman were wrongly retrenched by the respondents. A reference was made by the State Government but the Labour Court, on the basis of two Division Bench judgments in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.559/1991-Rajasthan State Electricity Board Jaipur & Another v. Ashok Pal, decided on 28.01.1992 , and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.523/1991- Rajasthan State electricity Board & Another v. Rajesh Kumar, decided on 08.05.1992 , held that the persons appointed as orderly in pursuance of the Circular dated 06.01.1979 of the Board, were not appointed by the Board, therefore, no relationship of 'master and servant' exists in between the employer and the workman and, as such, his retrenchment was valid whereas the Full Bench of this Court in Ishwar Singh v. R.S.E.B. & Others-2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 661 overruled the above referred both the judgments of the Division Bench and held that the relationship between the Board and the workman as 'master and servant' exists, therefore, the impugned Award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly hand frankly admitted that the Award of the Labour Court is based on two judgments of Division Bench of this court which have now been overruled by the Full Bench in Ishwar Singh's case, therefore, the impugned Award of the Labour Court may be set-aside and the case be remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh decision on merits. 5. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award dated 28th April, 1995 which clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the Circular dated 6th January, 1979 and, as per above referred two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the relationship of 'master and servant' in between the Assistant Engineer, RSEB, and the workman is not established, hence the termination of the services of the petitioner workman by the Assistant Engineer, RSEB, is valid. The Full Bench of this Court in Ishwar Singh's case (Supra) overruled the above referred two judgments of Division Bench and held that the relationship between the Board and the workman as 'master and servant' was established. Para 68 of Ishwar Singh's case (supra) is reproduced as under:- "68. As a result, earlier decision of Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.523/91 decided on 8th May, 1992 and in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.559/91 decided on 28th January, 1992 are overruled and we hold that on the true interpretation of terms and conditions envisaged in the circular dated 6.1.79 on his engagement since 1985, relationship between the petitioner and the Board as the servant and master was established. The Labour Court was patently in error in holding that no master and servants relationship existed between the claimant on the basis of Ashok Lal's case." 6. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench in Ishwar Singh's case, the Award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside and the same is hereby set-aside. Since the disputed questions of fact about violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were not decided by the Labour Court, therefore, it will be appropriate to refer the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh decision on merits. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award dated 28th April, 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, Camp Alwar in LCR Case No.137/88 is set-aside and the case is remitted back to the Labour Court for passing fresh Award on merits after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. 8. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award dated 28th April, 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, Camp Alwar in LCR Case No.137/88 is set-aside and the case is remitted back to the Labour Court for passing fresh Award on merits after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. 8. Since the matter relates to the year 1983, the Labour Court is directed to decide the matter as soon as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 9. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Bharatpur on 18th May, 2009. 10. The Registry is directed to send immediately a copy of this order to the Labour Court, Bharatpur, for compliance.Writ Petition Allowed. *******