Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1503 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Pala Ram

2011-07-27

A.M.SAPRE, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This is an intra Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No. 1927 of 2007 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against an order dated 8.5.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant (State) and in consequence upheld the award of the Labour Court dated 26.5.2005 passed in Labour Case No. 1/2005. 3. So the question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in upholding the award of the Labour Court? 4. It be not be necessary to take note of the full acts in detail in this order because they can be gathered from the impugned order, which is quoted infra for perusal. "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner-State is challenging the award dated 26.5.2005 by which the respondent No. 1's claim was allowed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in Labour Case No. 1/2005. The respondent is in service since 1988 and is continuing till today. in substance he sought relief of regularisation on the basis of length of his service, which has been allowed by the Labour Court vide impugned award dated 26.5.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Labour Court has committed serious error of law in allowing the claim of the respondent No. I in view of the fact that respondent No. I was not regularly selected candidate and he cannot get the regularisation and other benefits. Learned counsel for the respondent No. I submitted that the controversy stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC I which has been followed by this Court in SBCWP No. 5272/2005 - Sheoratan v. Judge, Labour Court 2 Ors., decided on 2.7.2008 . Undisputedly, the respondent No. 1 is in service since 1988 and discharging the duties then the Labour Court has not committed any error of law in issuing the direction as given in the award. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. 5. The question before the Labour Court was relating to regularisation of the respondent in the State services who was found working in State services since 1988 regularly. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. 5. The question before the Labour Court was relating to regularisation of the respondent in the State services who was found working in State services since 1988 regularly. The Labour Court so also writ Court on appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties in their respective jurisdiction were of the view that if some of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Uma devi's case, are applied in the case of respondent, then the benefit of regularisation could be extended to the respondent (workman). It was accordingly extended. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that grant of regularisation in this case may not be cited as precedence for deciding other matters. We hold so and observe that the case in hand would not be a precedent for other matters because due to peculiar facts of the case in hand, the impugned award was passed by the Labour Court and the same came to be upheld in favour of respondent by the writ Court and then by this Court in appeal. 7. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no case to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******