Dismissed

Ex Directoradmn R S R T C and Anr. v. Hakim Mohd and Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2021SAW/627/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for early hearing, the High Court, with parties consent, took up the appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the workman's services were correctly treated as regularized from 17.08.1993 and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no costs.

Ex Directoradmn R S R T C and Anr. Vs Hakim… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[SAW-627/2009]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 627/2009

¶5

The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

¶6

The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Bhilwara

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Hakim Mohd. S/o Sh. Ramjan Khan, Driver, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara Depot.

¶10

The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara

¶11

----respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Acharya through VC

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶14

Judgment

¶15

11/08/2021

¶16

The matter comes up on an application for early hearing of the case.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the respondent-workman has been superannuated in the year 2020 and presently he is suffering from cancer, therefore, he has prayed that the matter may be heard and decided at the earliest.

¶18

In view of the submissions made, the application for early hearing is allowed.

¶19

With the consent of the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing at this stage.

¶20

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.05.2009 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[SAW-627/2009]

¶23

appellants against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 26.03.2007 was dismissed and the findings recorded by the Tribunal were upheld.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ petition, had not taken into consideration the detailed facts and fell into error. He submitted that the order of regularization of the services of the respondent-workman could not be passed w.e.f. 17.08.1993 as the appointment of the respondent-workman was made only on daily wage basis. He further submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal had also not appreciated the facts in correct perspective and thereby committed an error while answering the reference by giving a direction to the appellants to treat the services of the respondent – workman to be in the regular pay-scale w.e.f. 17.08.1993.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – workman has supported the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and learned Single Judge of this Court and has submitted that although the workman was appointed on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 12.02.1992, but his services were regularized when he was re-appointed on 17.08.1993. He submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly answered the reference made to it and correctly ordered for treating the services of workman in regular pay-scale w.e.f. 17.08.1993.

¶26

We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and we have examined the pleadings on record including the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award dated 26.03.2007.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[SAW-627/2009]

¶29

Learned Tribunal, in detail, has examined the facts by framing the issues and has correctly adjudicated the reference after analyzing the evidence and pleadings brought on record. Learned Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the workman was appointed on 17.08.1993 in the regular pay-scale, as per prevailing orders holding the field at the relevant time. Therefore, the workman is entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 17.08.1993. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.05.2009 does not call for any interference.

¶30

The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶31

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶32

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶33

27-anil/payal/-

Ex Directoradmn R S R T C and Anr. v. Hakim Mohd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ex Directoradmn R S R T C and Anr. v. Hakim Mohd 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

Shri Karu Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-1, Jodhpur Vs M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Atc Telecom Infrastructure Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalbeliya Samaj Takatgarh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gram Panchayat Dhegana through Sarpanch Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Jitendra Sharma