Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1856 (RAJ)

Mansha Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-21

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 15.09.2003 whereby the semi-permanent status was conferred upon him w.e.f. 210.2000 by treating 210.1998 as the date of his initial appointment. The facts in brief giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Beldar w.e.f. 01.06.1988. The petitioner was discontinued from services w.e.f. 30.03.1992. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court Jodhpur for its adjudication to the effect as to whether the termination of the petitioner from service w.e.f. 01.04.1992 was just or proper if not, then for what relief the workman is entitled. 2. During pendency of the industrial dispute the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent employer and he was reinstated as Beldar on 210.1998, however, no salary of the period from the date of retrenchment to the date of reinstatement was given to him. The respondents under an office order dated 18.09.2000 declared a seniority list of the existing workmen under Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 wherein the name of the petitioner appears at S. No 20 and the date of his initial appointment is shown as 01.06.1988. The respondents thereafter under the order impugned dated 15.09.2003 conferred the semi permanent status to him under the relevant standing orders w.e.f. 210.2000 by taking into consideration 210.1998 as the date of his initial appointment. Being aggrieved by the same present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction for respondent to allow the semi-permanent and permanent status to him by treating 01.06.1988 as the date of his initial appointment. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner workman being ready to enter into compromise was taken into services on 210.1998 but wages were denied to him on the principle of No Work- No Pay. It is also stated by the respondents that there was no condition in the compromise that the petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity of service and, therefore, according to the respondents semi-permanent status was rightly granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 210.1998. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is also stated by the respondents that there was no condition in the compromise that the petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity of service and, therefore, according to the respondents semi-permanent status was rightly granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 210.1998. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is position admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar with the respondent on 01.06.1988 and thereafter he was retrenched by the respondent-employer on 30.03.1992. The petitioner was taken back in services on 210.1998 as a consequence of an agreement between the parties. At the relevant time an industrial dispute between the parties was pending for adjudication before the competent Labour Court. 6. The Labour Court answered the reference made to it in view of the agreement entered between the parties. After reinstatement of the petitioner the respondents declared a seniority list under Rule 77 of the Rules of 1958 wherein the name of the petitioner appears at S. No. 20 and the date of his initial appointment is shown as 01.06.1988. The agreement in pursuance of which the petitioner was taken back in services is not placed on record either by the petitioner or by the respondents. In view of it an inference is required to be drawn by the Court as to whether the petitioner was reinstated in services or a fresh appointment was given to him under the agreement arrived at between the parties. 7. As stated above the order dated 18.09.2000 whereunder seniority list under Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 was declared by the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Sirohi the date of initial appointment of the petitioner is shown as 01.06.1988. This fact clearly shows that the respondents were treating the petitioner reinstated with continuity in services but the back-wages were not allowed to him on basis of principle of No Work No Wages. The period commencing from 30.03.1992 to 210.1998, therefore, is required to be treated as part of the services of the petitioner though without wages. In view of it the petitioner is required to be treated in continuous employment of the respondents from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 01.06.1988. The period commencing from 30.03.1992 to 210.1998, therefore, is required to be treated as part of the services of the petitioner though without wages. In view of it the petitioner is required to be treated in continuous employment of the respondents from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 01.06.1988. The petitioner is entitled for conferment of semi-permanent status on completion of two years of service commencing from 01.06.1988 and for conferment of permanent status on completion of ten years of services commencing from 01.06.1988. 8. In view of whatever discussed above this writ petition deserves acceptance and the same, therefore, is allowed. The order impugned Annexure-4 dated 15.09.2003 is declared illegal to the extent the date of initial appointment of the petitioner is treated as 210.1998. The petitioners date of initial appointment is to be treated as 01.06.1988 and the respondent are, therefore, required to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of semi-permanent status and permanent status on completion of two and ten years of services respectively from the date referred above. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of semi-permanent and permanent status in accordance with the terms above within a period of three months from today. 9. No orders as to costs.