Dismissed

Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ram Singh Son of Shri Hari Singh

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2021SAW/241/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge, in SB Civil Writ Petition 2382/2015, granted regularization benefits to the respondent-petitioner in parity with other employees of the Bank, despite the lack of back wages continuity directed in the Labour Court award. The Special Appeal against this order was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Ram… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 241/2021

¶3

Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Sikar, Through Its Managing Director.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ram Singh Son Of Shri Hari Singh, R/o Village And Post Ajitgarh, District Sikar (Raj)

¶7

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. RA Katta Mr. MS Dhakad

¶8

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

¶9

Order

¶10

16/03/2021

¶11

This Special Appeal Writ has been filed against order dated 29.01.2021 in SB Civil Writ Petition 2382/2015 Ram Singh Versus Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Limited vide which the directions were issued to the appellant herein that the respondent-petitioner shall be considered for regularization with effect from the date of his appointment dated 04.08.1989. However, the respondentpetitioner shall not be given any benefit of arrear of regularization from 1989 upto 27.01.2004 that is the date of award and only notional fixation shall be made from 27.01.2004. The respondentpetitioner shall be entitled for regular pay scale benefit of Class-IV employee and also arrears minus the amount which have been already paid to the respondent-petitioner as minimum of the wages. The arrears shall be calculated accordingly and pay fixation

¶12

(2 of 3)

¶13

[SAW-241/2021]

¶14

shall be done. The exercise shall be completed within a period of two months henceforth.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent was appointed as daily wager on 23.08.1989 and was terminated vide order dated 04.06.1990. The reference made by the State Government in relation to the termination of the respondent-petitioner was answered by the Labour Court vide award dated 27.01.2004. The termination of the respondentpetitioner was held to be improper and illegal and accordingly he was directed to be reinstated in service but no directions were issued for back wages or continuity of service. The respondentpetitioner did not challenge the award, therefore, he is not entitled for any back wages and continuity of service. Learned Single Judge has granted relief to the present respondent in parity with other daily wage employees namely Gopal Lal and Madan Singh Shekhawat but the writ petition of Madan Singh Shekhawat for regularization is still pending adjudication and the facts of the case of Gopal Lal are quite different to the present respondentpetitioner. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides we find that the present respondent-petitioner Ram Singh has been granted the service benefits in parity with similarly situated daily wager employee of the appellant bank in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in his case Sikar Central

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-241/2021]

¶21

Cooperative Bank Limited Versus Gopal Lal [SLP 2665726658/2011 decided on 07.07.2014] . The award passed by the Labour Court in the matter of respondent-petitioner has also been taken into account while not granting actual benefits of arrears of regularization from the year 1989 up to 27.01.2004. Thus, we find no good reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶22

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J

¶23

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶24

RAHUL CHHIKARA /07

Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ram Singh Son of Shri Hari Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ram Singh Son of Shri Hari Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Public Against Corruption Vs Union of India

Ravindra, S/O Hariram Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S S B L Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 72 Jaipur

State of Rajasthan Vs Shrawanlal S/O Shri Narain Lal

Jyoti Sharma D/O Shri Virendra Sharma Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Kavita Atreya W/O. Shri Ratan Kaushik Vs the State of Rajasthan