Dismissed

The Executive Eng.Phed,Bhilwara v. Gopal Singh and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 Nov 2018CW/4295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed three writ petitions challenging Labour Court awards. The Court held that despite claims of contract work from 2013, the State's own witness admitted a long-term employer-employee relationship since 1996, necessitating referral to Labour Court. Following a Division Bench precedent, the writs were dismissed without interference.

What did the court decide?

The connected writ petitions were dismissed by holding that the Labour Court did not err in finding an employer-employee relationship.

The Executive Eng.Phed,Bhilwara Vs Gopal… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3063/2018

¶3

The Executive Engineer PHED Division, Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rameshwar Lal S/o Onkar, By Caste Bheel R/o Dantada Bandh, Tehsil Asind, Distt. Bhilwara. 2. Labour Court, Bhilwara.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ No. 4295/2018

¶10

The Executive Engineer, PHED Division, Bhilwara

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

Gopal Singh S/o Balu Singh Through Mahamantri Indian Trade Union, Distt. Bhilwara 2. Labour Court, Bhilwara

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ No. 4296/2018

¶16

The Executive Engineer PHED Division, Bhilwara.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

Bhagwan Das S/o Shri Bihari Das Vaishnav Through Mahamantri, Indian Trade Union, Bhilwara. 2. Labour Court, Bhilwara

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bhati.

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 19/11/2018

¶23

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the awards dated 8.11.2017 and 3.1.2018, whereby, reference made by the State Government has been answered in favour of the workmen.

¶24

The reference was made by the State Government in all the three matters inter alia as to whether there was employeremployee relationship between the parties and if so, whether the

¶25

(2 of 4)

¶26

[CW-3063/2018]

¶27

action of the employer in not declaring the workmen as semipermanent was justified.

¶28

After the evidence was led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workmen were indeed employed by the petitioner – State and that they were entitled to be declared as semi-permanent on completion of two years’ service.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court was not justified in answering the reference in favour of the workmen. It is submitted with reference to additional documents placed on record that the work of maintenance at the Urban Water Scheme Asind, was given on contract basis since the year 2013, which contract was renewed in the year 2015 and 2016 with different contractors and the assumption of the Labour Court that the workmen were still working at the said Scheme was not justified.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad & Anr.: SBCWP No.10883/2013, decided on 23.5.2014, which judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad & Anr. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1587/2014, decided on 1.6.2016.

¶31

Further submissions were made that a bare look at the statement of NAW/3 would reveal that the entire plea sought to raised by the petitioner – State is baseless. Further the workmen have claimed their engagement since the year 1996 and what has been placed on record is the contracts given in the year 2013

¶32

(3 of 4) [CW-3063/2018]

¶33

onward and, therefore, as the submissions made in this regard are baseless, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶34

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶35

The workmen had raised the dispute pertaining to their engagement since the year 1996 and the action of the respondents in not making them semi-permanent on completion of two years’ service under the Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (‘the Rules of 1964’). The Labour Court after evidence was led by the parties relying on the cross-examination of NAW/3 – Bhanwarlal, negated all the pleas raised by the State that the workmen were not engaged by them and/or there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties.

¶36

A bare look at the statement of NAW/3, the witness produced by the State, reveals that in cross-examination the said witness has specifically admitted the fact that the workmen were indeed engaged by the AEN, JEN of the Department and that their signatures were available on the log-book, which was produced in Case No.48/2012.

¶37

Once the State’s own witness has specifically admitted the relationship of employer - employee between the parties based on the engagement by the AEN & JEN and the fact that the workmen were working since around 1996, the mere fact that from 2013 onward, the work at the project was being given on contract does not affect the case of the workmen, who had already raised the dispute long before and the same was referred to the Labour Court in the year 2012.

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[CW-3063/2018]

¶40

In view of the above fact situation and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Prasad (supra), no interference is called for in the awards impugned. There is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶41

(ARUN BHANSALI),J.

¶42

Sumit-2, 3 & 4

The Executive Eng.Phed,Bhilwara v. Gopal Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Eng.Phed,Bhilwara v. Gopal Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maghar Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Bhupendra Dama Vs Udaipur Central Coop.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bhaga Ram Dangi Vs State of Rajasthan

Laldas Vs State of Rajasthan

The Executive Eng.Phed,Bhilwara Vs Bhagwan Das and Anr.

Sohan Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.