JUDGMENT 1. By judgment dated 21.2.2014, learned Single Bench directed appellant respondent Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'JVVNL') to comply with the order passed by the Commissioner (Disability), Rajasthan, Jaipur and to provide appointment to the respondent petitioner as an employee in Class-IV cadre. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent petitioner came to be employed as a casual labourer with JVVNL through a contractor M/s Raj Builders. He met with an accident while working at 33/11 KV Electricity Sub- Station, Bilara, Jodhpur and lost both the hands. On being failed to receive adequate financial as well as medical aid, the appellant preferred an application raising claim for compensation as per provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1930. The application was accepted on 9.10.2009 awarding compensation in a tune of Rs. 5,40,528/-. 3. The respondent petitioner after availing necessary treatment approached to the appellant respondent for continuing him in service on a suitable post, but of no consequence, thus, he submitted an application to the Commissioner (Disability) to issue necessary directions to the appellant respondent for providing suitable appointment as per provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1995'). 4. The claim for appointment was contested with assertion that the respondent petitioner was not in employment of the JVVNL being employed through a contractor. The Commissioner (Disability) after examining all the factual as well as legal aspects passed the order dated 22/23.3.2012 directing the JVVNL for providing appointment to the respondent workman on any suitable post. The direction given by the Commissioner (Disability) was not complied with by the JVVNL, thus, the respondent petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition to have a writ in the nature of mandamus to comply with the directions given vide order dated 22/23.3.2012. The respondent petitioner also claimed a compensation for causing unwarranted delay in compliance of the directions given under the order dated 22/23.3.2012. 5. The respondent petitioner also claimed a compensation for causing unwarranted delay in compliance of the directions given under the order dated 22/23.3.2012. 5. The JVVNL contested the petition for writ with assertion as under:- "It is submitted that the petitioner was a casual employee and under the provisions of the Act of 1995, cannot be made applicable to a daily wager and the casual employee, therefore, giving him employment as Class-IV by the Commissioner, Disability is absolutely incorrect and baseless. The petitioner cannot be permitted to claim regular appointment by virtue of invoking the Act of 1995 as per the definition provided under the Act of 1995. The learned Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to decide any dispute of a workman. The petitioner is not an employee of the JVVN Limited nor he has been granted any appointment order, therefore, any disability suffered by him can very well be compensated under the Act of 1923, which has been done in the present case. The learned Commissioner below has committed serious error in not giving finding that the provision of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 would be applicable to him. It is submitted that the provisions of the Act of 1995 cannot be invoked in the case of workmen that too a casual labour on daily wages. Hence, the learned Commissioner below has committed serious error of jurisdiction by passing such order dated 22/23.3.2012. Therefore, the said order is liable to be declared illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also been paid compensation as per the order of the Workman Compensation Commissioner and therefore, only a direction of reinstatement can be granted by the Disability Commissioner and since it involves a disputed question of facts, the remedy available to the petitioner was not before the Disability Commissioner. Therefore, the order passed by the Disability Commissioner is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction." 6. Suffice to mention that after filing of the petition for writ by the respondent petitioner the JVVNL also preferred a petition for writ to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner (Disability), Rajasthan (JVVNL v. The Commissioner (Disability), Rajasthan & Anr., SB Civil Writ Petition No.8101/2012) . Both the writ petitions were considered and decided by common judgment dated 21.2.2014. Suffice to mention that after filing of the petition for writ by the respondent petitioner the JVVNL also preferred a petition for writ to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner (Disability), Rajasthan (JVVNL v. The Commissioner (Disability), Rajasthan & Anr., SB Civil Writ Petition No.8101/2012) . Both the writ petitions were considered and decided by common judgment dated 21.2.2014. Learned Single Bench while accepting the petitioner for writ preferred by the workman and rejecting the writ petition preferred by the JVVNL, arrived at the conclusion that the workman at the time of meeting with accident was performing duties under the Assistant Engineer (O & M) at 33/11 KV Sub Station, village Jhak, as such, he was in employment of the JVVNL though he would have been supplied as a contractual workman through a contractor. 7. In appeal, the argument advanced on behalf of appellant JVVNL is that Section 47 of the Act of 1995 prescribes that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. The respondent petitioner was never in employment of the JVVNL, therefore, no question was there to dispense with him from service. So far as his appointment on a suitable post is concerned, that too cannot be given, he being not in employment of JVVNL. 8. Per contra, as per the respondent petitioner, he was working at 33/11 KV Sub Grid Station and was getting instructions to perform duties by the Assistant Engineer (O & M) of the JVVNL, therefore, he was in employment of the JVVNL, hence the Commissioner (Disability) rightly ordered for providing him suitable appointment. 9. Heard Shri Laxmi Narayan, representative of the appellant, Shri Paras Ram Choudhary, father of respondent Ashok Kumar and respondent Ashok Kumar himself. 10. Precisely, the issue involved in this appeal is that whether Section 47 of the Act of 1995 can be applied upon the respondent or not? Section 47 aforesaid reads as under:- "47. 9. Heard Shri Laxmi Narayan, representative of the appellant, Shri Paras Ram Choudhary, father of respondent Ashok Kumar and respondent Ashok Kumar himself. 10. Precisely, the issue involved in this appeal is that whether Section 47 of the Act of 1995 can be applied upon the respondent or not? Section 47 aforesaid reads as under:- "47. Non-discrimination in Government employments.-- (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service : Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section." 11. Section 47 prescribes that service of no employee shall be dispensed with by any establishment, if such employee acquires a disability during service. Crucial terms employed under Section 47 are "establishment", "employee" and "service". 12. As per Section 2(k) of the Act of 1995 "establishment" means a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes Departments of a Government. The appellant is a Government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, thus, is an establishment under the Act of 1995. 13. The appellant is a Government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, thus, is an establishment under the Act of 1995. 13. The term "establishment" is also defined under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Technical Workmen Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1975") and as per regulation 3(d) of it "establishment" means the Staff engaged to run a power House/ Workshop/ Grid Sub-station of the Board, and will also include the staff engaged on distribution, transmission and construction of lines or any work incidental to or connected with the work of the Board. It shall be appropriate to notice here that the JVVNL is a Government owned electricity company and the Regulations of 1975 are applicable to the technical workmen employed with it. 14. In view of the definitions referred above there is no doubt that JVVNL is an establishment under the Act of 1995 and also under the Regulations of 1975. An important aspect of the matter is that the term "establishment" under the Regulations of 1975, includes the staff engaged with the electricity company, hence, the staff engaged to run a Grid Sub-station is also a part of the establishment. 15. The terms "service" and "employee" are not defined or interpreted under the Act of 1995, under the Regulations of 1975 and under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1970"). In absence of the definitions of the terms referred above, we deem it appropriate to settle the issue relating to relationship of master and servant between the appellant company and the respondent workman with the aid of other labour legislations, specially the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In absence of the definitions of the terms referred above, we deem it appropriate to settle the issue relating to relationship of master and servant between the appellant company and the respondent workman with the aid of other labour legislations, specially the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry by an employer or by a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person - (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." (Rajasthan Amendment w.e.f. 1.7.1960). The definition has been subjected to further amendment in the year 2014 by the Rajasthan State Legislature, but we are concerned with the definition existing at the time of the rights accrued to the respondent petitioner on acquiring disability. 16. The definition has been subjected to further amendment in the year 2014 by the Rajasthan State Legislature, but we are concerned with the definition existing at the time of the rights accrued to the respondent petitioner on acquiring disability. 16. The definition of "workman" is also prescribed under the Regulations of 1975 and as per clause (i) of regulation of it, the 'workman' means any person (including and apprentice) employed in the Board to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory or technical work for hire or reward, who is employed on any post included in Appendix-I, whether the terms of his employment be expressed or implied, but does not include any such person: (i) who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity; (ii) who being employed in supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs. 500/- per mensem or exercises either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reasons of powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; or (iii) who is employed on any post included in Appendix II." 17. The definition of the "workman" given under the Regulations of 1975 is quite akin to the definition of the "workman" given under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 18. The respondent petitioner in light of the definition of the "workman" as referred under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Regulations of 1975 was a workman with electricity company. He was also a part of the establishment in light of the definition prescribed under the Regulations of 1975. Suffice to mention here that the Regulations of 1975 nowhere excludes contractual employee from being member of the establishment, as such, the respondent petitioner was a workman on the establishment of the appellant respondent. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to exclude application of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 in the instant matter. The discontinuation of the respondent petitioner from service and further denial to employ him on a suitable post as such is in violation of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act of 1995. Learned Single Bench, thus, rightly affirmed the order passed by learned Commissioner (disability) dated 22/23.3.2012.For the reasons given above, the appeal is bereft of merit, hence dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******