Dismissed

Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. the Superintendent Sawai Mansingh Hospital

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2019SAW/205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the Labour Court correctly found the appellant was a Home Guard member deputed to the hospital, not an employee. Findings of lower courts were held not to suffer from illegality or infirmity under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed; no relief was granted to the appellant regarding the claim of service as an employee.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 205/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9628/2018

¶5

Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No.81A, Mohan Nagar Hathi Teeba, Below Nahargarh Fort, Purani Basti, Jaipur Raj. Through J.l. Shah, Labour Consultant, F-83, Major Shaitan Singh Colony, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Superintendent Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Shri Tanveer Ahmed

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/09/2019

¶14

BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE DHADDHA, J.)

¶15

This special appeal has been filed by the appellant Vishnu Dutt Sharma against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition challenging the award dated 12.1.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court-First, Jaipur whereby the claim set up by the appellant was rejected by the learned Labour Court.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed as chowkidar on daily wage basis on 16.12.1989 in the office of Swai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. His

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[SAW-205/2019]

¶19

services were terminated by verbal order. The appellant submitted a civil suit before the learned ACJM No.7, Jaipur which was rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. The Government referred the matter for adjudication vide its Reference No.i-1(1) (1440)/Jfu/92 dated 3.3.1993 before the competent authority of the State Government to the learned Labour Court-First, Jaipur which is as under :

¶20

^^D;k v/kh{kd lokbZ ekuflag vLirky] t;iqj }kjk Jfed fo".kqnRr 'kekZ iq= Jh txnh’k 'kekZ ekQZr Je lykgdkj ,Q 83] estj 'kSrku flag dkWyksuh] 'kkL=h uxj] t;iqj dks fnukad 19-2-91 ls lsok eqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS \ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf’k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ^^

¶21

The learned Labour Court vide order dated 12.1.2018 dismissed the reference. That after, the appellant moved before the High Court whereby the writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.11.2018 by learned Single Judge. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders dated 12.1.2018 and 19.11.2018 are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate that the appellant had never worked as Homeguard in the SMS Hospital and treating him as Home-guard was not a proper finding. He submitted that the learned Single Judge upheld the award without properly appreciating the relevant evidence and material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had worked in the SMS Hospital from 16.12.1989 to 19.2.1991 and thus he is entitled to get protection as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent has not

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[SAW-205/2019]

¶24

complied with the provisions of sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶25

We have have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned orders and the material available on record.

¶26

The learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be said to be an employee of SMS Hospital but he was a member of Home-guard and he was paid wages as per Home guard and the claim has been rejected. The learned Single Judge had also not found any illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court in its order dated 12.1.2018 stated that the appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of ACJM No.7, Jaipur for setting aside his termination. But, the said suit was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, then the appellant filed a dispute before the Settlement Officer which was referred by the respondent to the learned Labour Court. In these proceedings, the respondent had not appeared before the learned Labour Court after service of notice by registered post. So, ex parte proceeding was drawn against him and ex parte order was passed in favour of the appellant on 27.9.1994 in which the learned Labour Court set aside the termination order of the appellant and declared his services in continuity with consequential benefits. The respondent filed an application on 9.1.1995 before the Labour Court to set aside the ex parte award that was rejected on 14.9.1995. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 705/1999 before this Court. In this writ petition, this Court set aside the ex

¶27

(4 of 4) [SAW-205/2019]

¶28

parte proceedings and remanded the matter to be decided within six months affording the opportunity of hearing.

¶29

The learned Labour Court in its order dated 12.1.2018 clearly observed that the appellant was member of Home-guard and he was deputed to the respondent department on the post of Watchman. His service were not terminated but he was sent to his parental department by order dated 3.12.1990 which was issued by the office of Commandant, Home-guard, Training Centre, Jaipur. The appellant in his statement clearly stated that he was not given appointment by the respondent. The appellant was not a workman of respondent department. The learned Labour Court in its order clearly observed that the appellant had not produced any document which shows that he was given appointment by the respondent department.

¶30

In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the learned Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶31

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶32

RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/M28

Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. the Superintendent Sawai Mansingh Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. the Superintendent Sawai Mansingh Hospital

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

Union of India Vs M.P. Gaur Son of Late Shri Prahlad Sharma

The Secretary, Labour and Employment Department Vs Sandesh Sharma Son of Late Shri Bhairav Dutt Sharma

Manohar Lal Swami S/O Shri Bihari Lal Swami Vs the State of Rajasthan

Commissioner of Customs Exciseandser Tax Vs Castex Technologies Ltd.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Kishore Meena Son of Shri Panchu Ram Meena

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Rambhajos