Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1128 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Rajesh Sharma

2005-04-13

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the award dated 02.05.2002( Annexure 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No. 253/99 may be quashed and set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dated 18.08.1999 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. 3. The learned Labour Court, Jodhpur issued notices to the parties. The respondent No. 1 submitted statement of claim alleging inter alia that he was initially appointed on muster roll basis w.e.f. 14.02.1985. In the year 1986 his services were terminated by the petitioner No. 3. Thereafter, he was taken back on duty on 110.1986. 4. It was also alleged in the claim petition that the respondent No. 1 was declared regular w.e.f. 18.01.1989 and thereafter, on 06.07.1991 he was declared permanent. He was promoted on the post of Pump Driver -II w.e.f. 07.09.1991 by the petitioner No. 3. 5. It has also been alleged in the claim petition that pursuant to the order of the State Government 08.08.1991 the services of the employees working under Sanchalit Jal Sankha was transferred to the petitioner department w.e.f. 01.01.1992 and since then respondent No. 1 is working in the petitioner department on the post of Pump Driver -II. 6. It has been averred by the respondent No. 1 that after his transferred in the petitioner department he was neither granted annual grade increment nor he has been given the new pay-scale as prescribed by Vth pay Commission. The respondent No. 1 has also been deprived of the benefit of selection grade. 7. Reply to the claim petition was filed by the petitioner stating inter alia the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to be given promotion on the post of Pump Driver -II as per Work-charged Rules. The promotion order clearly resides that it was only a temporary promotion for a period of one year or till the meeting of DPC is held. The promotion order clearly resides that it was only a temporary promotion for a period of one year or till the meeting of DPC is held. It was also alleged that after 08.08.1991 the petitioner No. 3 had no jurisdiction to grant promotion to the respondent No. 1, Thus, it was submitted that promotion accorded to the respondent workman void ab initio and does not create any right in favour of the respondent-workman. 8. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, vide its Judgment and award dated 02.05.2002 (Annexure 3), allowed the claim petition and directed regularisation of respondent No. 1 with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of award. 9. In the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 was promoted on temporary basis by the petitioner No. 3 against the provisions of Work-charged Rules. Thus, the promotion given to the respondent No. 1 is void ab initio and does not create any right in favour of the respondent-workman. Further the respondent No. 1 was transferred pursuant to order dated 08.08.1991 and admittedly respondent No. 1 was accorded promotion to the post of Pump Driver-II 07.09.1991 i.e., after the order of the State Government. Hence, the promotion of the respondent No. 1 does not create any right in favour of the respondent-workman. An objection regarding maintainability of the claim petition has also been raised by the petitioners inter alia stating that the dispute relating to regularisation does not for within in the definition of Industrial Disputes, hence, claim petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal was not maintainable. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Submits that the impugned award dated 02.05.2002 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and does not require any interference by this Court. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that in compliance of award dated 02.05.2002 (Annexure 3) the State Government has accorded financial sanction vide order dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure R/1), to meet out the financial burden on account of grant of regularisation of service as well as on account of grant of selection grade on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service. Thus, the present writ petition has become infructuous as the impugned award has already been complied with by the petitioners. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. 12. The learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of material available on record that the respondent No. 1 is working on the post of Pump Driver-II for last 9 years and his services are satisfactory. Despite that he has not been granted the annual grade increments and other benefits admissible to him under the law. The learned Labour Court, Jodhpur has further observed that on completion of one year of service on promotional post the respondent No. 1 was not reverted to the original post which is not the fault of the respondent No. 1 but the fact remains that the respondent No. 1 is working on the post of Pump Driver-II since 07.09.1991, therefore, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increments, revision of pay-scale as well as benefit of selection grade on completion of 9,18, and 27 years of service. 13. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increments, revision of pay-scale as well as benefit of selection grade on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service. 14. In my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Labur Court are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record an it cannot be said the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. The findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. 15. That apart in compliance of impugned award dated 02.05.2002 (Annexure 3) the State Government has issued financial sanction arising on account of grant of annual grade increment, revision of pay and benefit of selection grade. Thus, the impugned award has already been complied with by the petitioners. 10.16. Apart from that, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. Thus, the impugned award has already been complied with by the petitioners. 10.16. Apart from that, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. While exercising the powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as Court of appeal. 17. The High Courts power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power nor will the High Court, in exercise of this power, substitute its own Judgment for that of the inferior Court, whether on a question of fact, or of law, or interfere with the intra vires exercise of discretionary power, unless it is arbitrary or capricious, or unless there was no evidence at all on which the inferior Court could have come to conclusion it did or there was error of finding on a jurisdictional fact. 18. From perusing the Judgment and award dated 02.05.2002 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the facts of record and the findings recorded by the leaned Labour Court are perverse. 19. Thus, the Judgment and award dated 02.05.2002 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur cannot be said to be suffering from the basic infirmity and illegality and the same does not require any interference by this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.