Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 450 (RAJ)

Raj. Agri. Uni, Bikaner v. Judge, Ind. Tri.

2004-03-24

N.P.GUPTA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the workman, by holding that effecting retirement of a workman by the petitioner, on 01.05.1989, is bad and the workman was liable to be retired on 01.05.1991 only. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the workman was a work-charge employee, and according to the Work-charge Rules, the superannuation age is 58 years, and accordingly he was retired on 01.05.89. The learned Labour Court has found, that the Work-charge Rules did not govern the workman, as the workman was the employee of the to University, and according to Section 30 of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University Act, the retirement age is 60 years, and therefore, the impugned award has been passed. 4. It is not in dispute, that the workman was employed way back in the year 1964. It is also rot in dispute, that the Work-Charge Rules were adopted by the University in its meeting dated 24.04.1974 only. 5. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the workman was employed in the year 1964 under the Work Charge Rules. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the workman was employed as a casual employee, on muster roll basis. Though no such appointment order has been produced, nor any material has been placed on record, as to what were the terms of the employment but then, even if it is assumed, that this was the nature of the employment, still at the time of appointment, in absence of any work-charge establishment, and applicability of the Work-Charge Rules, 1964, he became the employee of the University, may be of whatever tenure or whatever be the nature of the employment. Then as appears from some question put to the witnesses in cross examination, that after adopting the Work-Charge Rules, some options were obtained from the employees, as to whether they opt to be governed by Work-Charge Rules. However, in the present case, it has not been shown on the side of the petitioner, either before the learned Labour Court, or before this Court, that the workman even submitted any such option, for being governed by the Work Charges Rules. 7. However, in the present case, it has not been shown on the side of the petitioner, either before the learned Labour Court, or before this Court, that the workman even submitted any such option, for being governed by the Work Charges Rules. 7. In that view of the matter, when the learned court below, on interpretation of Section 30 of the Mohanlal Sukhadia University Act 1962, and Section 36 of the Rajasthan Agricultural University Bikaner Act, 1987 has found, that the workman could be superannuated only on attaining the age of 60 years, I do not find any error on the part of the learned Labour Court, so as to require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. 8. The writ petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed summarily.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******