Allowed

Satya Narain v. Judge Labour Court I Jaipur and

Rajasthan HC9 Nov 2017CW/4448/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Labour Court award that rejected a workman's reinstatement claim. The Court held the award perverse for ignoring parity with similarly situated workmen. Consequently, the petitioner was granted reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 18.02.2003 was quashed. The petitioner-workman was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits and continuity of service.

Satya Narain Vs Judge Labour Court I… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4448 / 2004

¶3

Satya Narain S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal by Caste Brahmin, Jaipur,rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Judge, Labour Court-I, Jaipur.

¶7

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jacob Road, Jaipur.

¶8

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, PWD Campus Jacob Road, Jaipur.

¶9

Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-division Ist, (National High Way), PWD Campus Jacob Road, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini.

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Chand Yadav on behalf of

¶13

Dr. AS Khangarot.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

09/11/2017

¶17

(1) Learned Counsel points out that the award dated 18.02.2003 suffers from illegality and the reference could not have been answered against the workman in view the fact that on 14.01.1989 i.e. the day when the petitioner was removed from service therefrom. Apart from him 28 other workers whose services had been dispensed with, out of these 28, 21 filed directly a writ petition which was registered as S.B.C.W.No.222/1989 and was allowed by this Court on 7.3.1991 holding that termination order dated 9.12.1988 terminating their services w.e.f. 14.1.1989

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-4448/2004]

¶20

is bad in law and the same was quashed and set aside. Directions were issued to reinstate the said workman and count their entire service and grant them consequential benefits. The said order passed by this Court was upheld by the Division Bench as well as by the Supreme Court in SLP No.6638-6639/1994 decided on 09.07.1996.

¶21

(2) It is submitted that to the misfortune of the petitioner his writ petition could not be heard alongwith the aforesaid writ petitions and the High Court while deciding his writ petition remanded the matter to the labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, the reference was made by the State Government in his case and the petitioner submitted his statement of claim before the labour Court and also pointed out that in a similar case filed by the other workman relief of reinstatement was granted by the High Court and order has been complied.

¶22

(3) Learned labour Court vide the impugned award dated 18.02.2003, has rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that the termination was w.e.f. 14.1.1989 and the order was passed n 9.12.1988 and thus, the petitioner was required to collect the compensation amount on 14.1.1989 from the office of the respondent, although it is noted that the there were a holiday in the district on the said date.

¶23

(4) Thus, having noted above, I find that the order passed by the labour Court, Ist Jaipur is absolutely perverse having not taken into consideration the judgment passed by this Court relating to identically situated other workman and having ignored

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-4448/2004]

¶26

the position of law relating to parity as well as on rejecting the claim of the petitioner workman on whimsical grounds.

¶27

(5) In view of the above, the award dated 18.02.2003 is quashed and set aside. Reference is answered in favour of the workman holding the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 9.12.1988 w.e.f. 14.1.1989 as bad in law keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in S.B.C.W.P.No.222/1989 decided on 7.3.1991.

¶28

(6) Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman with all consequential benefits and continuity of service as it was directed by this Court for similarly situated persons. If during the pendency of the writ petition, the similarly situated workman has also been granted the benefit of semi permanency/permanency, the same benefit shall also be

¶29

extended to the petitioner-workman with all consequential benefits.

¶30

N.Gandhi/65

Satya Narain v. Judge Labour Court I Jaipur and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narain v. Judge Labour Court I Jaipur and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Registrar University of Ra Vs the Presiding Officer Labour C

Smt Asiya Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Neelam Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gopal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ranveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Nahna and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp