Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1246 (RAJ)

Managing Director v. Judge, Labour Court

2015-07-06

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
JUDGMENT Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner Department to challenge the award dated 09.08.2011 passed by Labour Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sriganganagar whereby the Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent workman and issued direction for granting regularisation to the respondent workman w.e.f. 1.1.1993 on the post of Class-IV employee. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said finding given by the Judge, Labour Court is totally erroneous because the Judge, Labour Court passed an order for regularisation on the ground that one Satveer Singh who was appointed after the petitioner on adhoc basis was granted the benefit of regularisation whereas the same benefit was denied to the respondent workman but in fact the said finding is erroneous because the respondent working initially appointed as daily rated employee and his services were terminated in the year 1991 and after his termination, Satveer Singh was provided appointment as Class-IV employee on adhoc basis against the post and granted the benefit of regularisation whereas the award was passed by the Judge, Labour Court in favour of the respondent workman and the same attained finality because the special leave to petition filed by the petitioner Department was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, in compliance of the said award, the respondent workman was reinstated in service as daily rated employee, therefore, the respondent workman again claimed his right at part with Satveer Singh because mode of appointment of Satveer Singh was altogether different than the appointment of the respondent workman. Further, it is submitted that at present there is no post of Class-IV employee is in existence upon which the benefit can be extended to the respondent workman, therefore, award impugned may be quashed. There is no scheme also upon which any order for regularisation can be passed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that it is a case of discrimination in view of the fact that admittedly the respondent workman was appointed in the year 1988 and his services were terminated in the year 1991, therefore, Satveer Singh was provided appointment on adhoc basis. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that it is a case of discrimination in view of the fact that admittedly the respondent workman was appointed in the year 1988 and his services were terminated in the year 1991, therefore, Satveer Singh was provided appointment on adhoc basis. As per learned counsel for the respondent workman, the litigation initiated by the respondent workman in the labour Court attained finality in the year 1999 when the Special Leave to Petition filed by the petitioner department was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court against the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court in which a order was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to reinstate the respondent workman in service with continuity of service. Meaning thereby as per counsel for the respondent workman, the workman became entitled for all service benefits except back wages as ordered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondent workman further argued that admittedly Satveer Singh was appointed after four years of appointment of respondent workman, therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of the fact that the respondent workman was appointed as daily rated employee and Satveer Singh was appointed on adhoc basis, no discrimination can be made by the petitioner for the purpose of granting benefit of regularization, therefore, it is not a case in which the respondent workman is claiming any right contrary to law but claiming his right on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because he was appointed prior than Satveer Singh whose services were regularised on the post of Class-IV employee w.e.f. 31.1.1996. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the finding given by Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar for the purpose of passing award in favour of the respondent workman. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the finding given by Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar for the purpose of passing award in favour of the respondent workman. Upon perusal of the finding, it emerges that admittedly Satveer Singh was provided appointment in the year 1992 and respondent workman was provided appointed in the year 1988 but unfortunately service of respondent workman were terminated in the year 1991, thereafter, he raised industrial dispute in which an award was passed in his favour and finally as per the direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Petition filed by the petitioner department, the respondent workman was reinstated but after reinstatement when he was not regularised w.e.f. the date of his junior person then again he raised an industrial dispute for regularisation on the post of Class-IV employee. 5. In the opinion of this Court, when admittedly Satveer Singh is junior to the respondent workman and was appointed after four years of the appointment of the respondent workman then mode of appointment will not come in the way for regularisation because in the year 1991, the services of respondent workman were terminated and after his termination, Satveer Singh was provided appointment on adhoc basis. Obviously, if it is presumed that the respondent workman remained in service then obviously he was entitled for adhoc appointment in the year 1992 in place of Satveer Singh but due to the reason that he was out of job, he was not provided appointment on adhoc basis, therefore, the award impugned passed by the Judge, Labour Court for the purpose of regularisation on the basis of discrimination does not require any interference so also the contention of petitioner's counsel that vacancy is not available is also not tenable because the respondent workman is claiming his right against the post upon which Satveer Singh was regularised w.e.f. 31.1.1996. therefore, while rejecting the place of the petitioner that no vacancy is in existence, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Judge, Labour Court in passing the award in favour of the respondent workman. Hence, this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is hereby dismissed.