Allowed

Dhanji and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2018SAW/757/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order awarding lump sum compensation because the appellants had settled with the respondents, waived back-wage claims, and were reinstated with revised pay during the writ proceedings. The court declared the parties bound by the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.03.2014 set aside; petitioners relieved from obligations under the award; parties bound by settlement.

Dhanji and Ors. Vs State and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 757/2014

Dhanji & Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

State & Anr.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Ravindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S.Rajpurohit, A.G.C.

¶9

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

¶10

Order

¶11

06/10/2018

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

If assistance was renderred before the learned Single Judge, the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 would not have been passed.

¶14

The respondents had filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1879/1999 challenging an award dated 24.10.1998 holding termination of workmen who had worked as ‘Beldar’ from 01.01.1980 to 30.09.1987 as illegal. Reinstatement with 50% back-wages was awarded.

¶15

The five workmen are the appellants. Before the writ petition was filed, concededly a settlement had taken place between the workmen and the department. The settlement was that the workmen would give up claim for back-wages. They would be reinstated in service on 17.12.1998 and would be paid salary in

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[SAW-757/2014]

¶18

the scale of 2550-3200. Initial pay at the beginning of the scale₹ i.e. 2550/- shall be paid with effect from 17.12.1998.₹

¶19

Pursuant to the settlement the workmen joined and were paid wages. A formal order dated 20.05.2004 was issued during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶20

The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition substituting the award with a direction that the workmen shall be paid a lump sum compensation of 25,000/-.₹ 7. Needless to state if the aforenoted facts were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the writ petition would have been disposed of noting that pursuant to the settlement the workers were taken in service and placed in the pay-scale aforenoted as regular workmen and they had given up the benefit under the award of back-wages. Thus, the declaration had to be that the subsequent events relieved the writ petitioners from the obligation under the award to pay back-wages and that new rights were created between the parties.

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2014. We declare that the respondents shall be relieved from the obligations under the award. We also declare that the parties shall be bound by the settlement they have arrived.

¶22

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

¶23

Kshama Dixit/19

Dhanji and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanji and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Khan Vs Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Soma Ram

N. K. Singhvi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hari Ram Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

State and Ors. Vs Lalu Ram

Union of India Vs Wolkem India Limited