JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.In this writ petition, the Superintendent, Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur has challenged the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur dated 20th of January, 2010 (Annex. 7). 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award submits that admittedly the respondent-workman was initially appointed in Ummed Hospital on 2nd April, 1988 and later on her services were extended from, time to time but she worked in currency of order passed by the Superintendent, Ummed Hospital till 24th of February, 1989. Thereafter the respondent workman served in Ummed Hospital through contractor and worked on contract basis till 12th of August, 1996. 3. Against discontinuance of her service, respondent workman raised industrial dispute before the conciliation officer and after failure of the proceedings for reconciliation, the matter was forwarded to the appropriate 5 Government for reference. 4. The appropriate Government, after considering the failure report forwarded by the Reconciliation Officer, referred the dispute to the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur for adjudicating the following reference:- " D;k izkFkhZ;k n'kjFk daoj csok Jh lksgu flag tkfr jktiwr ekQZr Jh vej d'".k O;kl v/;{k tks/kiqj ftyk iRFkj [kku Jfed iapk;r ckyslj tks/kiqj dks mlds fu;kstd v/kh{kd] mEesn efgyk ,oa f'k'kq fpfdRlky;] tks/kiqj }kjk fnukad 12-8-1996 ls lsokeqDr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks izkFkhZ;k fdl jkgr o jkf'k dks ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ " 5. After receiving reference from the Government, the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur issued notice to the workman as well as to the petitioner-employer. 6. Before the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur, the respondent-workman filed her claim and thereafter an opportunity to file reply was granted to the petitioner-department and after providing an opportunity to lead their evidence to both the parties, the Judge, Labour Court passed impugned award dated 20th of January, 2010. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Judge, Labour Court, passed award in favour of the respondent-workman and set aside the verbal termination order dated 12th of August, 1996 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that finding given by the Judge, Labour Court that respondent-workman worked 240 days in one calender year in the Hospital is totally erroneous because initially respondent-workman, was provided appointment vide order dated 24th of June, 1988 and she worked as an employee of the Hospital till 24th of February, 1989. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that finding given by the Judge, Labour Court that respondent-workman worked 240 days in one calender year in the Hospital is totally erroneous because initially respondent-workman, was provided appointment vide order dated 24th of June, 1988 and she worked as an employee of the Hospital till 24th of February, 1989. Thereafter though the respondent workman worked but through contractor, therefore, it cannot be said that for termination, the petitioner-department was under obligation to follow the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act so also it is submitted that respondent workman has not completed 240 days in any one year. Therefore, in the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, for violation of sections 25F and 25A and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, is erroneous and the respondent-workman was not entitled for any compensation or any notice because till 28th of February, 1989 she did not complete 240 days. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur is totally erroneous and award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned Dy. Government Counsel invited attention of the Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Sanjay, 2009 (122) FLR 850 (SC) : 2009 AIR SCW 5059 , and submitted that in this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if any employee engaged in different contracts in two separate establishments then it cannot be said that employer is under obligation to follow the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act for valid termination, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned award deserves to be quashed. 10. After hearing learned Dy. Government Counsel for the petitioner-State and upon perusal of the entire record of the case, it emerges that the petitioner-department is not disputing the date of appointment of the workman so also the date of discontinuance of her services, the only dispute is that till 24th of February, 1989, the respondent-workman worked under the orders passed by the Superintendent, Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur and thereafter she was not provided any appointment order and she was engaged through NGO on contract basis and allowed to continue on the post of workman till her termination w.e.f. 12th of August, 1996. 11. 11. In this view of the matter, it is obvious that continuance of service of the respondent-workman is not in dispute with effect from her initial entry to the service till her discontinuance, but the only challenge is that the mode of appointment was different. The workman was initially appointed by the Superintendent, Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur and later on her services were engaged through NGO on contract basis. 12. Upon perusal of award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur, I am of the opinion that Judge, Labour Court has arrived at the finding that as per statement of Doctor K.L. Bissa, who appeared on behalf of employer himself admits that workman was working from her initial entry to the service till her termination in the Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur. Meaning thereby there is no dispute with regard to tenure of her working in respondent department but this witness is also disputing that mode of appointment was different than the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur is based on sound reason because the petitioner-department is not disputing appointment of the respondent-workman so also the workman is illiterate lady and she stated in her claim that she worked in the department continuously but when first mode of appointment was changed which is not known to respondent-workman. There is finding in the award also that no documentary evidence with regard to engagement of the respondent-workman in petitioner-department is on record. In para 17 of the award, it is specifically observed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur that workman was not knowing about her mode of appointment which was later on changed. It is stated by her that she was given attendance in the hospital regularly and performing her duties as workman in the petitioner department. 13. In my opinion, the finding of fact given by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur cannot be re-appreciated under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Here in this case, as per award so many other persons junior to the respondent workman namely Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Durga Lal, Smt. Pushpa wife of Kanheyalal, Smt. Leela Devi wife of Jamna Ram and Satyanarayan were regularised on the post of class IV employee although they were junior to the respondent-workman and no seniority list whatsoever was published by the department. Therefore, the termination of the respondent-workman's service was found to be in violation of section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur after taking into consideration the entire fact and evidence on record arrived at the finding that termination of respondent-workman's services was illegal and in contravention of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 14. In my opinion, the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable upon the peculiar facts of the case. The Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur has rightly arrived at the finding that before termination of the respondent-workman's services, the mandatory provisions of section 25F and section 25A and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act was not valid. Further the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court with regard to non-compliance of section 25G and H of Industrial Disputes Act is also based on sound reasons. 15. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition filed by the Superintendent, Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur is hereby rejected.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******