Dismissed

State and Anr. v. Zakir Mali and Anr.

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2018WRW/100/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a review petition modified a previous order in a labour dispute. The court held that a direction in an appeal dismissal order directing full back wages exceeded the scope of the Single Judge's decision which had only directed reinstatement without back wages under a government circular. The incorrect direction was corrected to limit the order to complying with the Single Judge's

What did the court decide?

The review petition was disposed of by modifying paragraph 6 of the order dated 07.03.2017 to remove the direction for payment of full salary from 07.01.1997 and limit the order to compliance with the

State and Anr. Vs Zakir Mali and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Review No. 100 / 2017

¶3

State of Rajasthan Through

¶4

Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Bhilwara.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Jakir Mali Son of Shri Peer Khan, Resident of Mandalgarh Through Mahamantri, Bhartiya Van Vibhag Karamchari Sangh 11/97, Bhupalganj, Bhilwara.

¶8

The Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rishabh Tayal on behalf of Mr.K.L.Thakur, A.A.G.

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr.T.S.Champawat

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

07/02/2018

¶16

Application No. 210 / 2017:-

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing

¶18

the review is condoned. The application is disposed of.

¶19

Writ Review No. 100 / 2017:-

¶20

The appellant had challenged the correctness of an award dated 05.07.2001 directing reinstatement with 50% back wages to the workman. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 23.10.2013 the Government of Rajasthan issued a circular to settle such dispute. As per the circular, if the workman was ready

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[WRW-100/2017]

¶23

to forego the back wages, the Government and its departments were agreeable for reinstatement.

¶24

The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.11.2013 recording statement made by the counsel for the workman that the workman was ready for reinstatement provided semi permanent status and as directed by the award dated 05.07.2001 was given. The workman was then ready to forego the back wages.

¶25

In view of the circular issued by the Government the writ petition was disposed of directing as under:-

¶26

"Accordingly, this petition for writ is disposed of by modifying the award impugned dated 28.10.2004 in the terms that the workman shall be entitled for reinstatement in service with all continuity and consequential benefits but shall not be entitled for any back wages. The employer, however, shall make compliance of the award dated 5.7.2001 and make fixation of the petitioner’s pay in the pay scale applicable on notional basis. Necessary compliance of the directions aforesaid is required to be made on or before 15.3.2014.”

¶27

The State came up an appeal.

¶28

The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2017, review whereof is prayed. Dismissing the appeal, in paragraph 4 of the order dated 07.03.2017 it is recorded as under:-

¶29

"4. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is on concession given by the respondent-workmen that they will forego

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[WRW-100/2017]

¶32

backwages therefore, the circular dated 23.10.2013 issued by the State Government was accepted and the writ petition was disposed of. ”

¶33

Thereafter, the operative direction in paragraph 6 of the order reads as under:-

¶34

"6. The appeal stands dismissed. The compliance of the order of learned Single Judge will be made within a period of 30 days from today and the respondent workmen will be paid full salary from 07.01.1997.”

¶35

There is obviously a direct conflict between what has been observed in paragraph 4 and directed in paragraph 6. In paragraph 4 it has been recorded that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was premised on concession given by the workman and the Government would be bound by the circular dated 23.10.2013. The direction in para 6 is to pay full wages from 07.01.1997.

¶36

This direction runs contrary to the award for the reasons only 50% back wages were directed to be paid. Direction also runs contrary to the decision of the learned Single Judge where back wages were not to be paid but the award had to be complied with on notional basis.

¶37

While dismissing the appeal there being no cross appeal filed by the workman the direction to expand the scope of the impugned order against the appellant and in favour of the workman is ex facie an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[WRW-100/2017]

¶40

We dispose of the review petition modifying the direction issued in paragraph 6 of the order dated 07.03.2017. The said paragraph shall be substituted as under:-

¶41

‘The appeal stands dismissed. The compliance of the order by the learned Single Judge will be made within a period of 30 days from today.’

¶42

At this stage we note that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been complied.

¶43

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

¶44

Kshama Dixit

¶45

State and Anr. v. Zakir Mali and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Anr. v. Zakir Mali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Chandra Prakash Vyas

Shri Sheetla Mataji Kaga Tirth Trust Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bheru Lal Jat and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Ganga Ram Vs State and Ors.

Deva Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Santosh Vs Union of India and Anr.