ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against award dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure-1) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur. 2. By a notification issued by the appropriate government dated 31.05.2004, following dispute was referred to the Labour Court:- ^^D;k egklfpo] jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe 'kksf"kr dk;Z'kkyk deZpkjh la?k] t;iqj }kjk layXu lwph ds vuqlkj of.kZr 127 Jfed izcU/k funs'kd] jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe] t;iqj ds v/khu fu;ksftr deZdkj gS \ ;fn gk¡ rks D;k izcU/k funs'kd] jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe] t;iqj }kjk bUgsa fnukad 1-12-2003 ls lsok esa ugha fy;k tkuk mfpr o oS/k gS \ ;fn ugha rks Jfedx.k fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS \** 3. Initially the dispute pertained to 127 workmen, however, the award impugned has been passed qua 37 workmen named in the table and qua 90 workmen a no dispute award has been delivered by the Labour Court. 4. Initially the dispute pertained to 127 workmen, however, the award impugned has been passed qua 37 workmen named in the table and qua 90 workmen a no dispute award has been delivered by the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court, after statement of claim and reply thereto filed by the parties as well as after oral & documentary evidenced was led by the parties, came to the following conclusion:- ^^bl ekeysa esa izkFkhZx.k Lohd`r :i ls tkWc csfll ij vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dk;Zjr jgs gSa vkSj mudks tkWc ds fy;s tks Hkh vkStkj e'khu ftu ls og dk;Z djrs Fks os lHkh vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk miyC/k djk;s tkrs gS ;g mUgksaus viuh lk{; esa ftjg ds nkSjku Lohdkj fd;k gSA tkWc dgka fd;k tkrk Fkk ;g vizkFkhZ dh lk{; esa vk;k gS fd vizkFkhZ dh dk;Z'kkyk esa fd;k tkrk FkkA Hkqxrku fdlds }kjk gksrk Fkk ;g ckr Hkh vkbZ gS fd Hkqxrku Hkh vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA dk;Z dkSu ysrk Fkk&fuxe ds vf/kdkjh ysrs Fks ,slh fLFkfr esa tks QsDVlZ fu;kstd&fuksftr dk lEcU/k LFkkfir djus ds fy;s fopkfjr gksus pkfg, os lHkh ;gka ekStwn gSA vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dguk gS fd 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z djus ds fy;s dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA esjh jk; esa fu;kstd }kjk tc ;g Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k muds ;gka tkWc csfll ij dk;Zjr deZpkjh FksA fofHkUu vof/k esa lHkh us 3 ls 9 o"kZ rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS vr% 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk dys.Mj o"kZ esa izekf.kr gSA ,sls ekeysa esa vizkFkhZ dks ykLV&de QkLV&xks ds fl)kUr dh ikyuk djuh pkfg;s Fkh o ikyuk Hkh ugha dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj vkS|kfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25&th dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;gh ugha izkFkhZx.k dk dk;Z lUrks"ktud gksrs gq;s Hkh izkFkhZx.k dks lsokeqDr dj u;s vuqcU/k fd;s x;s vkSj u;s deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr dhA vr% vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k ds ekeysa esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25 th dk Hkh mYya?ku fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k dks iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dk dksbZ ekSdk ugha fn;k x;k gSA ,slk gh fl)kUr 2010 ¼3½ ,llhlh ist 192 gjftUnzflag cuke iatkc LVsV os;j gkml ds ekeys esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA vr% izFke iz'u dk ;gh mRrj gS fd izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZ ds chp esa fu;ksftr&fukstd dk lEcU/k gSA izR;sd izkFkhZ us dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA fu;kstd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k ds ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q] 25&th ,oa 25&,p dh ikyuk ugha dh gSA** 5. While dealing with the issue pertaining to the relief, the Labour Court though referred to judgment of this Court in Satya Narain Vaishnav & Ors. v. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors., 2011 (1) RLW 718 (Raj.), granted the following relief:- ^^vizkFkhZ izcU/k funs'kd] jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe] t;iqj ds fu;ksftr deZdkj gS] ftudks vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 30-11-2003 dks lsok esa ugha fy;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA 2- mijksDr izkFkhZx.k dks vf/klwpuk dh frfFk fnukad 31-05-2004 ls leLr cSd&ostst jkf'k dk 25 izfr'kr iwoZHk`fr ds :i esa fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA 3- mijksDr izkFkhZx.k dh lsok;s fujUrj ekuh tkosA 4- mijksDr izkFkhZx.k U;wure nSfud etnwjh ds fglkc ls nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa jkf'k dh x.kuk djok ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] tks vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks ns; gksxhA 5- mijksDr izkFkhZx.k ;fn mez ds fygkt ls ,oa LokLF; ds fygkt ls lsok;ksX; gS rks mUgsa iqu% nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa gsYij ds in ij fu;ekuqlkj le; le; ij izpfyr U;wure etnwjh ij lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd;k tkosA** 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made several submissions seeking to canvass that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondents-workmen were entitled to the relief as granted. 7. Submissions have been made that the workmen were working on job work basis/piece rate basis and, therefore, they are not entitled to the reliefs granted by the Labour Court. It was emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief, which has been granted by the Labour Court, is essentially contradictory, inasmuch as, though the finding has been recorded that the respondents-workmen were working on job work basis, directions have been given to re-engage them on daily wages basis on the post of Helper, which aspect in any case, cannot be sustained and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. 8. Further submission has been made that the Labour Court looking to the fact that the alleged termination took place in the year 2003 and award was passed in the year 2018, instead of passing the impugned directions should have ordered for a lump sum compensation, which would have met the ends of justice and, therefore, the award impugned be set aside and/or the same be modified. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen vehemently opposed the submissions. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the Labour Court after thoroughly considering all the issues involved, has rightly come to the conclusion that the workmen were entitled to the relief as granted. However, it was fairly conceded that the respondents-workmen were not entitled to the relief more than what was granted in the case of Satya Narain Vaishnav (supra). 10. Regarding the plea raised by the petitioner regarding award of lump sum compensation, it was submitted that as large number of workmen were involved in the matter, the matter took a lot of time before the Labour Court for adjudication cannot be a reason enough to deny the respondents relief as granted, inasmuch as, the issue was immediately raised by the workmen in the year 2003 itself and the same was referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court in the year 2004 and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record, so also, examined the record called from the Tribunal. 12. As noticed hereinbefore though submissions were made seeking to displace the findings recorded by the Labour Court, a bare look at the findings as quoted hereinbefore would reveal that the said findings essentially are based on the admission of the petitioner - Corporation regarding the respondents working on job work basis/piece rate basis and irrespective of the said plea raised by the petitioner, based on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the employer employee relationship between the parties was established. Once the said relationship was established, the consequences thereof were bound to follow and, therefore, to the said extent the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 13. Once the said relationship was established, the consequences thereof were bound to follow and, therefore, to the said extent the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 13. So far as the plea regarding the relief as granted by the Labour Court is concerned, a look at the relief, which has been granted, clearly indicates that though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondents were working on job work basis/piece rate basis, relief has been granted as if they were regularly employed by the petitioner - Corporation and their services were wrongly terminated, inasmuch as, while directions have been given that they were entitled to payment on daily wages basis, again another direction has been given that they would be entitled to daily wages on the post of Helper, which relief as granted and as conceded by learned counsel for the respondents-workmen, cannot be sustained. 14. Though the Labour Court noticed the judgment in the case of Satya Narain Vaishnav (supra), which was almost identical on facts, for apparently no reason did not follow the relief/dictum regarding the relief granted in the said case. 15. This Court in the case of Satya Narain Vaishnav (supra) while deciding the writ petition filed by RSRTC against the award passed by the Labour Court, qua the relief, came to the following conclusion:- "20. As far as the writ petition being SBCWP No. 2795/2007 filed by the RSRTC challenging the award dated 1.6.2006 is concerned, the said writ petition is also devoid of any merit and as already stated above, since the petitioners have to be reinstated and restored back to the position as obtaining prior to passing of Annex-1 order dated 28.9.2003; however, the question of paying any pay scale as applicable to the Helpers to the present petitioners is concerned, the same does not arise and in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Respondent-RSRTC can continue to pay them on work basis/piece rate basis as done prior to the said date, of course, subject to the relevant laws like Minimum Wages Act, 1948." 16. In the said case also the Labour Court had ordered payment of pay scale as applicable to Helpers, qua which the Court directed that the RSRTC can continue to pay them on job work basis/piece rate basis as done prior to the date their services were terminated. 17. In the said case also the Labour Court had ordered payment of pay scale as applicable to Helpers, qua which the Court directed that the RSRTC can continue to pay them on job work basis/piece rate basis as done prior to the date their services were terminated. 17. So far as the plea regarding the lump sum compensation to the respondents is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents in this regard have substance. 18. As already noticed hereinbefore, termination of the services took place in the year 2003 and immediately the dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer, which resulted in the failure report and the dispute was referred in the month of May, 2004 by the appropriate government. 19. Merely because the matter remained pending looking to its nature, wherein, large number of workmen were examined and documents were exhibited, it cannot be said that merely because the matter remained pending before the Labour Court for about 14 years, the relief of lump sum compensation was an appropriate relief. Further, apparently, no such plea was raised before the Labour Court by the petitioner Corporation. Consequently, the submissions made in this regard cannot be accepted. 20. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Corporation is partly allowed. While the findings as recorded by the Labour Court do not call for any interference, the relief as granted by the Labour Court, as noticed hereinbefore, would stand modified in terms of the relief as granted in the case of Satya Narain Vaishnav (supra), quoted hereinbefore, whereby, instead of respondents being entitled to payment of pay scale as applicable to Helpers, they would be entitled to remain on job work basis/piece rate basis as was their status prior to their termination. 21. No order as to costs.