Dismissed

Resident Engi. Rsr Dev.andCONS.Corpn andANR v. Mohan Lal Sharma and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2014SAW/1197/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D.B. bench dismissed the special appeal arising from a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award clarifying benefits to a reinstated workman. The court held that a reference under Section 36A regarding employer determination was valid and sustained the Single Judge's direction to enforce the award. The appeal was dismissed with a direction to comply with award terms.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to comply with the remaining terms of the Labour Court award.

Resident Engi. Rsr Dev.andCONS.Corpn andANR Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1197/2013 Resident Engineer (R.S.R.D.C.C. Ltd.) Vs Mohan Lal & Ors.

¶2

¶3

// 1 //

¶4

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1197/2013 Resident Engineer (R.S.R.D.C.C. Ltd.) Vs Mohan Lal & Ors.

¶5

DATE OF ORDER : 3^rd March 2014

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Vinay Jain, for the appellant.

¶8

<><><>

¶9

BY THE COURT :

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made in the application (CMCW No. 107/2014), 2 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this appeal.

¶12

The sum and substance of the matter remains that on an industrial dispute raised by the respondent-workman way back in the year 1988, ultimately, the award came to be made by the Labour Court, Sriganganagar in Labour Dispute Case No. 48/1988 on 04.02.1993. By way of the award, the Labour Court concerned declared the termination of services of the workman illegal and directed for his reinstatement with continuity of services and for according him other benefits as accorded to other similarly circumstanced persons. The writ petition and then special appeal filed in this Court against the award so made were dismissed respectively on 11.01.1994 and 18.02.1994. The workman,

¶13

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1197/2013 Resident Engineer (R.S.R.D.C.C. Ltd.) Vs Mohan Lal & Ors.

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

thereafter, moved an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and during pendency thereof, he also approached the State Government for interpretation of the relief granted to him under the award dated 04.02.1993, whereupon the question was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Sriganganagar under Section 36A(1) of the Act by the Notification dated 27.08.1998 in the following terms:-

¶16

“शम�क श� ��हन ल�ल श�� प�त श� ल�खर�� श�� गल� न�. 12 नई आब�द� (ब�ड�) हन � �नगढ बन�� आव�स�य अम!यन#�, र�जस&�न र�जय प(ल एव� नन��ण ननग� हन � �नगढ (#तक�ल�न) क� पकरण �. एल.स�.आर. 48/88 �. ददन��क 4.2.93 क� ददय� गय� अव�ड� क0 प�लन� क� मलय� ननय�जक क1न ह2 ? #&� प�&3 शम�क अव�ड� क� अन�स�र कय� कय� ल�! ददय� ज�न� ह2 #&� ककसक� द�र� ददय� ज�न� ह7 ?

¶17

On the question so referred, after due consideration of the matter, the Labour Court concerned finally answered the reference in its award dated 28.09.2001 in Labour Dispute Case No. 42/1999 in the following terms:

¶18

“इस पक�र इस अध:ननण�य �. ज� ल�! म�लन� &� व� सपष ह2 । च(�कक उप ननय�जक क�प?र�शन ब�क�न�र श�ख� क� घ�षB# कर ददय� ह2 इसमलए ननरन#र स�व� क�य� ज� रख� गई ह2 उसक� समबन: �. अध:ननण�य क0 अन�प�लन� �. स�व� �. व�षपस मलय� ज�कर ननरन#र रखन� स� समबनन:# क�य�व�ह� ननय�जक क� करन� ह2 #&� क��च�र� द�र� ब�क�न�र �. नजस #�र�ख क� अपन� उपनस&न# द�न� समबन:� पत ददय� ह2 उसस� उसE स�व� क0 ननरन#र#� क�य� रख� ज�कर ज� अनय ल�! ददय� ज�न� ह2 अनय क��च�ररयG क� नजस पक�र स� ल�! ददय� गय� ह2 उस� पक�र स� इस म�लन� ह2 नजस� ननय�जक सवय� अनय क��च�ररयG क� ददय� गय� सपष ल�!G क� नन:��रण हन � �नगढ क� ररक�ड� क� द�खकर जह�� !� स&�न�न#रर# ह�आ ह2, कर� । ऐस� स(र# �. उक रप स� यह ननण�य अपन� आप �. सपष ह2 नजसक0 प�लन� क0 ज�य� #&� उस पर बय�ज !� उस� दहस�ब स� आद�श�न�स�र ददय� ज�व. ।"

¶19

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1197/2013 Resident Engineer (R.S.R.D.C.C. Ltd.) Vs Mohan Lal & Ors.

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

Seeking to assail the award so made by the Labour Court concerned, the appellant preferred the writ petition leading to this appeal. It was sought to be contended before the learned Single Judge that a reference under Section 36A(1) of the Act could have been made by the State Government only if any difficulty or doubt arose as to interpretation of any of the provision of an award or settlement; but such a reference could not have been made for the purpose of deciding as to who was the employer of the workman at the time of passing of the award.

¶22

The learned Single Judge found baseless the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant-petitioner while observing, inter alia, as under:

¶23

“14. Obviously, the dispute was raised by the petitioner in terms of Section 36A of the Act inasmuch as the respondents by putting there own interpretation to the award attempted to deny the benefits flowing therefrom to the first respondent. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Labour Court has only clarified that in terms of the award since the termination of the services of the first respondent was held to be illegal by the Labour Court and he was treated to be in continuous service, the petitioner employer is required to take him back on duty with continuity of service and further to extend all benefits which are extended to the workmen engaged at Hanuman Unit, who were transferred to other units of RSRDC. Suffice it to say that the dispute referred by the appropriate Government at the instance of first respondent in terms referred supra, was a creation of petitioner-employer inasmuch as it attempted to defeat the award dated 4.2.93 passed in favour of the petitioner ignoring the unequivocal directions issued by the Labour Court while passing the award.”

¶24

The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the workman had already been taken back in service keeping in view the order passed by the this Court under Section 17B of the Act and, therefore, the part of the award already stood complied with. However, the learned Single Judge also made observations and directions to the employer to extend all other benefits available to the

¶25

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1197/2013 Resident Engineer (R.S.R.D.C.C. Ltd.) Vs Mohan Lal & Ors.

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

workman in terms of the award.

¶28

Seeking to challenge the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, it is contended that the reference as made was beyond the scope of Section 36A(1) of the Act; and a question as to who was the employer of the workman at the time of passing of award, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, could not have been referred.

¶29

We find the submissions bereft of substance. Section 36A(1) of the Act reads as under:

¶30

“ 36A. Power to remove difficulties.- (1) If, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of an award or settlement, it may refer the question to such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as it may think fit”

¶31

When in respect of the award dated 04.02.1993, the question was sought to be raised by the petitioner and Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corporation, Hanumangarh as to who was the employer of the workman at the time of passing of the award, obviously, the question gave rise to some doubts as regards interpretation of the terms of the award and hence, the same was rightly referred by the State Government for determination by the Labour Court concerned.

¶32

Apart from the above, we find hardly any justification to entertain the challenge to the award made on 28.09.2001 for the additional reason that the directions in the principal award dated 04.02.1993, as regards reinstatement, have already been complied with. We are of the considered view that it is high time that this litigation is given the quietus; and the appellant ought to comply with other terms of the award without further delay.

¶33

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1197/2013 Resident Engineer (R.S.R.D.C.C. Ltd.) Vs Mohan Lal & Ors.

¶34

// 5 //

¶35

Subject to the observations foregoing, the appeal stands

¶36

dismissed.

¶37

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

¶38

sudhir

Resident Engi. Rsr Dev.andCONS.Corpn andANR v. Mohan Lal Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resident Engi. Rsr Dev.andCONS.Corpn andANR v. Mohan Lal Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawani Singh Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Mamta Devi Vs State of Raj.

Cc I T Bikaner Vs M/S G P Taparia

Union of India and Ors. Vs Laxman Ram No. 113779- Res.

Shyam Singh Vs Mr. Ashok Bhandhary and Ors.

Babulal Sharma Vs State and Ors.