Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2015 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Verma

2010-12-07

GOVIND MATHUR

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - To question validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 5.3.2005 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this petition for writ is that the appropriate Government under a Notification dated 5.10.2004 referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in the terms that: "Whether the Superintending Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Sri Ganganagar and the Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Suratgarh were just and proper in not granting designation of Lower Division Clerk and regular pay-scale to the workmen M/s. Rajendra Kumar, Shayo Ratan and Bhagirath Mai (represented by Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Sri Ganganagar)? If not, then for what relief the workmen are entitled?" 3. As per the workmen, since their appointment the employer utilised their services in ministerial cadre, therefore, they were entitled to be conferred with semi-permanent status and permanent status in ministerial cadre and were also entitled to get fixation of their pay in the pay scale relating to the post concerned. On the other hand, the stand of the employer is that the appointment to the workmen was given as a daily-rated employee, therefore, semi-permanent status was conferred to them as Beldar. The employer also denied the fact about utilisation of services of the workmen in ministerial cadre. 4. The learned Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the rival parties, gave a finding of fact that the services of the workmen Rajendra Kumar and Bhagirath were utilised in ministerial cadre. The Labour Court also held that the workman-Rajendra Kumar was employed in work-charge cadre of the employer on 2.2.1989 with a salary of Rs. 708.16, i.e. the pay prescribed for the post of Lower Division Clerk and, as such, the workman was discharging the duties of a Clerk. The pay of Rs. 708.16 was also given to the workman-Bhagirath, who was employed with the employer on 1.2.1989. The Labour Court also examined certain other documents wherein the duties relating to ministerial cadre were assigned to the workman. 5. The pay of Rs. 708.16 was also given to the workman-Bhagirath, who was employed with the employer on 1.2.1989. The Labour Court also examined certain other documents wherein the duties relating to ministerial cadre were assigned to the workman. 5. While challenging the findings given by Labour Court, the contention of learned Counsel for the State is that the post of Lower Division Clerk at the relevant time was prescribed under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 and recruitment to that could have been made only as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules aforesaid. No procedure, as prescribed in the Rules concerned, was adhered while making appointments to the respondent-workmen, therefore, they could have not been employed as Clerk, thus, the direction given by the Labour Court for appointment of the respondent-workmen as Lower Division Clerk is bad. 6. I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. 7. It is the position admitted that the respondent-workmen were employed in work-charge cadre, as such, the Rules of 1957 are having no application in the instant matter. Under the Rajasthan Work-charge Employees' Service Rules, 1964 the post equivalent to the post of Lower Division Clerk is of the Store Munshi. The nature of duties for the post aforesaid is ministerial and the pay prescribed for the post was Rs. 708.16 at the relevant time. The petitioner-employer was admittedly making payment of wages to the workmen @ Rs. 708.16 per month. The other documents taken into consideration by the Labour Court also clearly establishes that the petitioner-employer utilised the services of the respondent-workmen in ministerial cadre. The finding of fact given by the Labour Court, thus, is based on adequate appreciation of evidence. Once it has been held that the services of the respondent-workmen were utilised in ministerial cadre, then they are certainly entitled for grant of semi-permanent status and permanent status as per Rule 3 of the Work-charge Rules, 1964 on the post they were working. In view of this position of law, the respondents would have been declared semi-permanent on the post of Store Munshi, that is post equivalent to the post of LDC. The natural corollary of conferment of semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi on completion of two years' of service is that the respondent-workmen should have been granted the pay-scale relating to the post aforesaid. The natural corollary of conferment of semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi on completion of two years' of service is that the respondent-workmen should have been granted the pay-scale relating to the post aforesaid. It is also not in dispute that the post of Store Munshi is having the same pay-scale and the nature of duties which are of Lower Division Clerk in regular cadre and since 1994 no new appointments are made under the work-charge cadre and further the existing members of the work-charge cadre are also required to be taken in regular cadre. A Store Munshi in work-charge cadre is entitled to be placed in regular cadre as LDC. 8. In this factual background, I do not find any wrong with the award impugned that may warrant interference by this Court, while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******