Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 299 (RAJ)

RSRTC, Jaipur v. Lakhan Singh

2005-02-02

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "RSRTC") against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.05.2004 by which the learned Single Judge while upholding the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur has also directed that the award be implemented as there was no infirmity in the same and the respondent-workman was entitled to be absorbed in the regular scale of pay as a driver in the RSRTC. Infact the writ petition which had been filed before the learned Single Judge was merely for the implementation of the award as the legality and validity of the award had already been upheld up to the stage of Division Bench vide DB Special Appeal No. 1/2003 and the only limited controversy before the Single Judge was as to whether the respondent-workman could be granted the status of a regular employee by virtue of his appointment in the regular scale of pay or he would be entitled to be absorbed as a daily wager. Infact this confusion arose as in the award of the Labour Court it was not specifically given out that the respondent-workman was fit to be absorbed in the regular scale of pay, but it indicated that he would be entitled to all the benefits of continuity of service. The learned Single Judge however, after examining the controversy was pleased to hold that the respondent-workman was fit to be absorbed in the regular scale of pay as per the award of the Labour Court. 2. The appellant-RSRTC feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge has preferred this appeal and has sought to cash in on the operative portion of the Labour Courts award where it perhaps inadvertently missed to record that the respondent-workman was fit to be absorbed in the regular scale of pay. 3. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have perused the award of the Labour Court passed in favour of the respondent-workman as also the Judgment and order of the Division Bench which had upheld the award passed in favour of the respondent-workman and had also directed to implement it within a specific period. 3. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have perused the award of the Labour Court passed in favour of the respondent-workman as also the Judgment and order of the Division Bench which had upheld the award passed in favour of the respondent-workman and had also directed to implement it within a specific period. Infact-in our view, the appropriate remedy for the respondent-workman was to move a petition for contempt for non-implementation of the order of the Division Bench, but for the reasons best known to him, he filed a separate writ petition for implementation of the award and rightly or wrongly the same was entertained by the learned Single Judge. But merely because the writ petition was entertained although a petition for contempt was the appropriate remedy in our view the legality of the award cannot be allowed to be questioned since its validity has already been upheld. We have, therefore, perused the impugned award as also the order dated 07.01.1987 which was marked as Exhibit W-4 before the Labour Court which is the order specifically indicating the name of the respondent-workman alongwith others ordering that they are absorbed in the scale of pay of Rs. 490-840, but the respondent-workman could not join within a period of seven days due to which his services were terminated and the said termination was held to be bad in the eye of law before the Labour Court and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages and as already stated, this award has already been upheld upto the stage of Division Bench. Inspite of several Judgment s and orders of the Courts below, the controversy has still been raised by the appellant-RSRTC that the respondent-workman was not entitled to be absorbed in the regular scale of pay as he was a daily wager but while pressing such a plea, it was expected of the appellant-RSRTC to take care of its own order dated 07.01.1987 which had ordered for absorption of the respondent-workman in the regular scale of pay and it would have been fair on the part of the appellant-RSRTC to absorb the respondent-workman in that scale of pay. Yet the litigation has been stretched and practically a second round of litigation has been unnecessarily raised in regard to his absorption in the regular scale of pay. 4. Yet the litigation has been stretched and practically a second round of litigation has been unnecessarily raised in regard to his absorption in the regular scale of pay. 4. If the foregoing discussion is understood in the light of the order dated 07.01.1987 granting regular scale of pay to the respondent-workman read with the award of the Labour Court which was passed in favour of the respondent-workman, the position is sufficiently clear that the respondent-workman had duly been ordered to be absorbed in the regular scale of pay, but his services were wrongly terminated by the appellant-RSRTC. But the order of termination having been set aside and that being upheld upto the Division Bench on the earlier occasion-which position has later been reiterated by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment and order, we see no justification why the appellant-RSRTC should have raised this controversy. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal and record that the appellant-RSRTC has unnecessarily attempted to cash in on the ambiguity of the award of the Labour Court although the same is clear if the whole award is read as a whole. 5. The Counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has thereafter drawn the attention of this Court that the amount which had already been paid to the respondent-workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought to be deducted from the amount of 50% wages which has already been paid to the respondent-workman. It is obvious that this amount will have to be deducted, by way of abundant caution and also realising from the experience where even State Undertaking like RSRTC has been feuding unnecessarily by mis-interpreting the award, we make it clear that the amount which has already been paid to the respondent-workman under Section 17-B of the ID Act will be allowed to be deducted while computing the back-wages upto 50% to be paid to the respondent. 6. The special appeal under the circumstance stands dismissed.