The High Court dismissed the special appeal. The bench held that the appellant was a temporary employee whose service was limited to a specific scheme that had been abolished. The court found no illegality in the Labour Tribunal's dismissal of the absorption claims or the termination process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.83/2008
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.928/2002
Jugal Singh S/o late Shri Angad Singh, aged about 45 years, resident of Pratap Nagar, Nar Mata Ji Ka Mandir, Loha Khan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
-----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Shri Hitesh Bagri For Respondent)s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
21/08/2019
BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE DHADDHA, J.)
(2 of 4)
[SAW-83/2008]
order dated 15.7.1985 in the office of District Women & Child Development Agency, Ajmer in the pay-scale of Rs.490-10-55015-640-20-840 along with other admissible allowances after adopting due process of recruitment followed by the respondents before giving appointment to the appellant. The services of the appellant were continue. The appellant discharged his duties with utmost satisfaction of higher authorities. The appellant purported to have been issued show cause notice on 7.10.1994 under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The services of the appellant were terminated by the respondents on 8.12.1995. Before terminating of the services, neither any enquiry was conducted nor notice was given. Subsequently, a number of other persons who were appointed on the post of Driver in different agencies throughout the State, were allowed to continue in service. The appellant moved a reference before the learned Labour Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the reference was dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2001. That after, the appellant moved before the High Court whereby the writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.8.2007.
(3 of 4)
[SAW-83/2008]
admissible allowances after adopting due process of recruitment. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was given the prescribed pay-scale along with other admissible allowances of the post of driver, were given to the appellant at par with the regularly and thus he was a permanent employee of the State Government. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the services of the appellant were terminated by the respondent without following due process of law. As no enquiry was conducted nor any notice was given to him. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had rendered more than 10 years of continue service, the appellant was entitled to be given the benefit of absorption according to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. We 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. 5. The appellant in his statement before the learned Tribunal has clearly stated that he was appointed as temporary driver. He stated that the scheme in which he was appointed, had been abolished and the post of driver was not no more. The appellant admitted in his statement that he had been given Rs.19,000/- - 20,000/- at the time of his termination and he had taken the said amount without any objection. The service of the appellant was limited to the scheme only. The learned Tribunal in its order clearly observed that the respondent had not violated the
(4 of 4)
[SAW-83/2008]
mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge also had not found any illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/C1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the special appeal against the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition challenging the Labour Tribunal's order.
Whether the termination of appellant's services without an enquiry violated the Industrial Disputes Act and made the impugned orders perverse.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of absorption as a permanent employee of the State Government.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jugal Singh S/o late Shri Angad Singh
State of Rajasthan
Mohammad Rafiq
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
