Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2794 (RAJ)

Superintending Engineer v. Chhittar Mal

2017-12-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition is directed against award dated 25.04.2017 passed by Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the claim raised by the respondent-workman has been accepted and his reversion from the post of Driver to the post of Helper-I has been quashed and set aside with consequential benefits. 2. The respondent-workman was initially engaged as Muster Roll Employee on daily wages in the year 1971; whereafter on 26.06.1980 he was appointed on the post of Driver and whereafter he was given benefit of first selection grade on completion of nine years service on 06.03.1992; a charge-sheet dated 03.11.1992 was issued to the respondent-workman; whereafter another charge-sheet dated 08.08.1995 was issued to the respondent-workman and an Inquiry Officer was appointed; the Inquiry Officer gave his report on 06.04.1999 holding the respondent-workman guilty of misconduct. 3. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 22.04.2000 holding the respondent-workman as guilty of the charges, imposed punishment of reversion to the post of Helper-I. 4. The departmental appeal preferred by the workman was dismissed as barred by limitation. 5. Whereafter the respondent-workman raised dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate government. 6. The Labour Court by its impugned award came to the conclusion that the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Driver, he could not have been reverted to a post lower than the post on which he was appointed and based on the said finding, set aside the order of reversion, however, it was directed that the written warning be recorded in the service book of the respondent-workman that he should not drive the vehicle negligently and after consuming liquor in future. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment once the respondent-workman was held guilty of the charges. The charges against the respondent-workman were grave and once he was found working negligently and that also in a position of a Driver, there was no reason for reducing the punishment by the Labour Court and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. From the material available on record it is not in dispute that the workman though initially worked as Helper-II in temporary capacity with the petitioner Nigam, he was appointed as Driver in the year 1980. 10. Once the appointment of the workman is found to be on the post of Driver, while imposing the punishment even as major penalty, a workman cannot be reverted on position lower than on which he was appointed. This legal position is well settled in view of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court including Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi vs. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1987 (SC) 1627 , wherein, it has been laid down as under:- "A direct recruit to a post cannot be reverted to a lower post. It is only a promote who can be reverted from the promotion post to the lower post from which he was promoted. The order of the State Govt. reverting the petitioner, a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Deputy Educational Inspector, to the lower post of primary teacher was unsustainable." 11. In view of the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court as followed by this Court in the case of Tikma Ram vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors, 2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 665 , the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be faulted. 12. In view of the above facts situation and the legal position, the award impugned does not call for any interference. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.