Dismissed

Shaitan Singh Bhati v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2018SAW/1705/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-Judge Bench dismissed the appellant's appeal against the High Court Single Judge's decision quashing a labour court award. The court held that despite a tenure appointment later in 1998, the appellant was effectively a daily wager at the time of termination, rendering Section 25F protections inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order that set aside the industrial tribunal's award.

Shaitan Singh Bhati Vs Union of India — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1705/2018

¶3

Shaitan Singh Bhati S/o Shri Rawat Singh Bhati, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Bhati, R/o Bager Beri, Quila Road, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, through Director, Board of Apprenticeship Training (NR), Kanpur.

¶7

Industrial Tribunal- Cum Labour Court, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma on behalf of Mr. Sajjan Singh For Respondent(s) : ---

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

15/11/2018

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶14

Award in favour of the appellant dated 21.02.2003 has been set aside by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 10.04.2018. The award has returned a finding that the appellant proved having worked as a workman from 01.01.1998 till 01.11.1998. During this period he had worked for 240 days. Termination was in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

¶15

Setting aside the award the learned Single Judge has referred to Exhibit-4 proved before the labour court which is an appointment order dated 23.04.1998. The appointment order gives tenure appointment at a monthly wage of 1500/-. The₹ learned Single Judge has thereafter noted the pleadings in the

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[SAW-1705/2018]

¶18

claim petition and highlighting paragraph 6 and 7 thereof has held that the case of the appellant as pleaded before the labour court was that he was given tenure appointment vide Exhibit-4.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the claim petition has to be read meaningfully and not pedantically. Drawing attention to the pleadings in paragraph 5 and 8 of the claim petition learned counsel urges that the case pleaded by the appellant was that on 01.01.1998 he was given appointment on daily wage basis @ 50/- per day. Thereafter, after appellant was₹ interviewed, tenure appointment was given on 23.04.1998. This aspect has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge.

¶20

Suffice it to state even if we proceed to analyze the fact as projected by the appellant it would be a case the appellant’s appointment as Chokidar with effect from 01.09.1998 was as a daily wager. Status changed when Exhibit-4 was issued. Tenure appointment for a fix period on monthly wages was given. When the period of tenure came to an end services were discontinued. The exception to Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act will come into play.

¶21

The appeal is dismissed.

¶22

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶23

Mohit Tak

Shaitan Singh Bhati v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaitan Singh Bhati v. Union of India

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Parbat Singh

The State of Rajasthan through the Home Secretary, Vs Jai Narain

State of Rajasthan Vs Mahesh

Deravar Singh Vs Mr. Shailendra Agarwal

Kamlesh Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs Pawan Singh