JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 07.08.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Case No.43/1990 answering a reference made to it by the appropriate Government under a notification dated 8th March, 1990 in the terms that "whether termination of workman Shri Rajesh s/o Shri Sardara Ram Chaukidar by the Managing Director/Security Officer Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner w.e.f. 17.11.1987 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief and amount, the workman is entitled?" 2. As per the facts available, the respondent Rajesh Kumar was employed as Chaukidar at Rathi Farm under control of the Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner. By an order dated 17.11.1987, he was discontinued from service on the count of his negligence resulting outward movement of three bulls from the farm premises. Being aggrieved by the same, an industrial dispute was raised by Shri Rajesh Kumar and that was ultimately referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner. 3. While contesting claim of the workman, the petitioner came forward with a case that Shri Rajesh Kumar was employed by Contractor, therefore, he was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") and also that even as per Shri Rajesh Kumar also, there was a contract to supply security personnels with one Shri Karan Singh and aforesaid Karan Singh was making payment of the salary to him. Learned labour court while negativating stand of the employer treated Shri Rajesh Kumar, a workman and thus applied the provisions of the Act of 1947. The labour court held termination of the workman, a retrenchment effected in violation of mandatory condition precedents to do so. A direction, thus, was given to reinstate the workman with back wages and continuity in service. The petitioner has reiterated all the contentions urged before the Labour Court while challenging the award impugned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent Rajesh Kumar was discharging duties at the time of his termination from service at Rathi Farm run by the petitioner employer. The petitioner has reiterated all the contentions urged before the Labour Court while challenging the award impugned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent Rajesh Kumar was discharging duties at the time of his termination from service at Rathi Farm run by the petitioner employer. As per provisions of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 (Rajasthan Amendment dated 01.07.1960), even if a person is employed by a contractor in relation to execution of his contract with any employer, then such person is required to be treated as workman. In the instant matter, Shri Rajesh Kumar may had been employed by a contractor, but admittedly he was working in relation to execution of a contract entered between Shri Karan Singh and the petitioner employer, therefore, he is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. It is the position admitted that while terminating the petitioner from service, no mandatory condition precedents as required under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were adhered by the petitioner employer, the learned labour court, therefore, rightly held retrenchment of the workman effected in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 6. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the labour court instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, would have allowed suitable compensation to the workman as the post of Chaukidar was not available with the petitioner employer. 7. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced. At the first instance, the petitioner nowhere raised any issue regarding non-availability of the post of Chaukidar before the Labour Court. Beside that, the work of Chaukidar is of parinial nature and, therefore, in normal course, such work is not required to be given on contract in view of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Be that as it may, the labour court after considering all available facts, granted a reasonable relief to the workman and that is not required to be interfered by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******