ORDER : 1. The petitioner challenges the award dated 17.05.2000 alleging perversity in the award. It is stated that the Labour Court has failed to notice averments made by the petitioner in his statement of claim as well as in his statement on oath relating to retaining of persons junior to him in service while removing him. The Labour Court while passing the award has stated categorically that the petitioner has not made any averment in his statement of claim relating to three junior workman who were retained while service of the petitioner were dispensed with. 2. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the statement of claim in para 10 to assert his submissions. He also has taken this Court to para 13 wherein it is stated that persons junior to him were given appointment after removing the petitioner without giving any opportunity. However, without reading the said documents, the Labour Court proceeded to make observations as noted above. It is submitted that persons retained who are junior to the petitioner, their names have been mentioned in his statement of claim as well as on oath. It was binding upon the respondents to refute the same. However, the respondents have not refuted this position either in their statement or in their cross-examination. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not been clear in making his averments and the Labour Court has stated that there is no clear averment on part of the petitioner. And therefore, no fault can be attributed to the order passed by the Labour Court. 4. I have heard both the counsels, this Court notes that in para 10 of the statement of claim, the petitioner has specifically made averments relating to non-compliance of provisions of Section 25-H and not following the principle of "last come first go" and continuing of three workmen whose name were also mentioned namely Shukha, Lalu Ram and Vijendra while service of the petitioner were dispensed with and averment with regard to appointing people after the petitioner had been removed, is mentioned in the statement of claim as well as the statement on oath by the concerned workman while the Judge, Labour Court has noted otherwise. 5. In view of above, the basis of award passed by the concerned Judge, Labour Court is not made out. 5. In view of above, the basis of award passed by the concerned Judge, Labour Court is not made out. The Judge has failed to take notice of averments which were on oath as well as in the statement of claim. On the other hand, a finding contrary to record has been recorded by the concerned Judge, Labour Court and has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner- workman. 6. Being satisfied, this Court therefore sets aside the order passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur dated 17.05.2000 and the writ petition is allowed in terms that the petitioner- workman shall be entitled to continuity of service and reinstatement from the date he was removed. The petitioner is stated to have working on daily wage basis with the purpose of watering plants and doing various works related to forest. In the circumstances, the award dated 17.05.2000 is quashed and set aside with back wages and continuity of service, if person junior to the petitioner have been placed on the regular rolls/declared semi permanent or permanent, the petitioner’s case shall also be considered for similar terms. The exercise shall be conducted within period of three months henceforth. It is made clear that if compliance is not made, the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further notice. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No costs.