JUDGMENT : 1. These civil writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2873/2016 (By Company): “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned award dated 30.11.2015 Annexure1 passed by the Labour Court Udaipur in Labour Case No.9/2008 may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside. Any other relief to which the petitioner appears entitle to may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 694/2016 (By Workman): “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2015 may kindly be modified upto the extent of reinstatement in lieu of compensation. (ii) The respondent company may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of fitter with all consequential benefits with back wages. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the parties, are that the party-Workman was appointed vide order dated 21.03.2002 as Helper in the party-Company (earlier known as ‘Liberty Phosphate Company’), on monthly pay of Rs.1,820/-. Thereafter, he was posted as Fitter; on 07.09.2006 during the duty hours, he sustained injury on the left wrist. On the very next day i.e. 08.09.2006, the party-Workman requested the party-Company that in connection with the said injury, he was required to undergo the necessary medical treatment, whereupon the party-Company refused to permit the party-workman to perform his duty. The Company also retrenched the party-workman from service vide verbal order on 08.09.2006. 2.1. The party-Workman filed an application before Labour Commissioner, Udaipur for settlement. The Labour Commissioner referred the matter for conciliation, but the conciliation proceedings were declared as failed, and accordingly, the matter was forwarded to the State Government for making the necessary reference. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour vide its notification dated 10.04.2008 made a reference to the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal & Labour Court, Udaipur. 2.2. The Labour Commissioner referred the matter for conciliation, but the conciliation proceedings were declared as failed, and accordingly, the matter was forwarded to the State Government for making the necessary reference. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour vide its notification dated 10.04.2008 made a reference to the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal & Labour Court, Udaipur. 2.2. During the pendency of the reference and the statement of claim, the Liberty Phosphate Ltd. was merged into KORO Mandal International Ltd (party-Company). The party-workman filed an application seeking impleadment of the KORO (CORO) Mandal International Ltd. as respondent therein; the said application was allowed and the amended cause title was taken on record. 2.3. The learned Labour Court, after hearing both the parties and examining the documents on record, passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2015, while directing the party-Company to pay, to the party-workman, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum, while declaring the workman’s retrenchment from service as illegal. The needful, as per the impugned order, was directed to be done within a period of one month from the date of passing of the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the party-Company submitted that the claim of the party-Workman that he was the employee of the Company herein was apparently false, more particularly, when the party-workman has completely failed to prove the existence of master-servant relationship, between him and the Company herein. 4. Learned counsel for the party-Company further submitted that the learned Court below however, without considering the settled position of law, and without considering the evidences and material place on record, passed the impugned order, which is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law. 4.1. Learned counsel in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mackinon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd Vs. Mackinnon Employees Union (Civil Appeal No. 5319 of 2008) decided on 25.02.2015. and State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Irrigation & Anr. Vs. Shashi Joshi (Civil Appeal No. 9999 of 2014) decided on 03.11.2014. He further relied upon the judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Gopal Lal Parashar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 175 of 2003) decided on 14.02.2017 and Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Road Development Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Judge Labour Court-2 & Anr. He further relied upon the judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Gopal Lal Parashar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 175 of 2003) decided on 14.02.2017 and Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Road Development Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Judge Labour Court-2 & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11945 of 2012) decided at Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 11.04.2017. 5. On other hand, the learned counsel for the party-Workman submitted that the learned Labour Court, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the material available on record, ought to have passed an order of reinstatement, instead of passing an order only to the extent of award of compensation, and thus, only to that extent, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the industrial dispute law. He further submitted that the party-Workman, prior to the retrenchment in question, had worked for more than four years in the Company herein, and therefore, the master-servant relationship between the parties is clearly discernible on the face of the record. 6. Learned counsel for the party-Workman also submitted that the learned Labour Court passed the impugned order without considering the evidence and documents placed before it because the Company herein neither submitted any documentary evidence, for filing up the post, which was held by the party-Workman. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 8. This Court finds that the party-Workman was appointed on 21.03.2002 on the post of Helper and further he was posted as Fitter in the party-Company. On 07.09.2006 during the duty the party-Workman was sustained injury on the left wrist. Thereafter, the party-Company vide verbal order dated 08.09.2006 retrenched the party-Workman from the service. 9. This Court finds that the learned Labour Court observed in the impugned order that the party-Workman had worked in the Company herein for more than four years, and thus, his sudden retrenchment from service was not lawful. The learned Labour Court further observed that since the party-Workman was retrenched from service nine years prior to passing of the impugned order, therefore, any direction with regard to his reinstatement in service would not be justified. 10. The learned Labour Court further observed that since the party-Workman was retrenched from service nine years prior to passing of the impugned order, therefore, any direction with regard to his reinstatement in service would not be justified. 10. This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned court below, is a well reasoned speaking order, as the learned Labour Court had awarded the compensation to the party-Workman as lump-sum amount, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum, which was perfectly justified in law. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. 12. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.