Partly allowed

Rseb Ajmer v. Bhanwar Lal Sharma

Rajasthan HC10 May 2023CW/2190/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award regarding seniority and promotion benefits for workman Bhanwar Lal Sharma. The High Court modified the award, finding Sharma senior to the disputed employee and entitled to Meter-Reader post benefits after screening.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 8.4.1991 modified; Petitioner directed to conduct screening and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Rseb Ajmer Vs Bhanwar Lal Sharma — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

;&i$$:i> #%,a;$ * HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE FOR RAJASTHAN J:.W **BENCHA%$AIPUR** ***.a

¶2

~.T,'s*<

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 45711994

¶4

Rajasthan State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rashtriya Vidyut Karmachari Sangh, Vijay Nagar Ajmer, Rajasthan through its President. 2. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Sahdev Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2190/1999

¶10

Rajasthan State Electricity Board through its Asstt. Engineer (0 & M) Vijay Nagar, Ajmer

¶11

Versus

¶12

Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma slo. Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, R/o. Vijay Nagar, Ajmer; through M.F. Beg, Labour Welfare Centre, Mayank Talkies Ke Pass, Station Road, Jaipur; 2. The Judge, Labour Court, Ajmer

¶13

For	Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. J.K. Singhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Kumar
			Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
For -	Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Govind Gupta, Adv. -

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶15

10/05/2023

¶16

- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 457/1994

¶17

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶18

following prayer:-

¶19

'It is, therefore, respectfully and humbly prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and -

¶20

$@<bb

¶21

i) By an appropriate wriksorder or direction the award of the learned Industrial ~rib'unal dated 8.4.91 so far as Bhanwarlal's case is concerned, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶22

ii) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner."

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner submits that by passing the impugned award dated 08.04.1991, the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur has recorded a finding in para 10 of the award that the workmanBhanwar Lal Sharma was senior to one Harbilas and Harbilas was given promotion on the post of Meter Reader. Counsel submits that for recording such finding, there was no evidence available on the record and only on the basis of conjectures and surmises,,.th'e aforesaid finding has been recorded. Counsel submits that the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma was appointed as Work Charge Helper on 01.09.1965 while Harbilas was appointed as Work Charge Helper on 02.07.1965. Counsel submits that this fact is clear from the affidavit submitted by Harbilas (Annexure-3) before the Tribunal. Counsel submits that misinterpreting the evidence of the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma's witnesses an erroneous finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that workman-Bhan*:ar La1 Sharma was senior to aforesaid Harbilas and Harbilas was given promotion on the post of Meter-Reader and similar benefit were given to the workman-Bhanwar La1 Sharma by issuing direction for giving promotion to the workman on the post of Meter-Reader. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is warranted and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶24

[2023/RJJP/0101441

¶25

,'.\T ~Ir1. (30k.5) mftq..a. A [CW-457119943 &*# A#$& k,, r

¶26

3. Per contra, counsel for tt?eq"respondents has opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since the date of appointment on the post of Work Charge Helper, the petitioner has taken the duties of Meter-Reader from the workman-Bhanwar La1 Sharma. Counsel submitted that one Harbilas was appointed on the same post i.e. Work Charge Helper in the year 1966 and this fact has been recorded by the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of both sides in para 10 of the award. Counsel submitted that the witnesses produced by the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma specifically admitted that the work of Meter-Reader was taken from the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma since the date of his appointment. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Tribunal has recorded a cogent, reasoned finding that the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma was senior to Harbilas and accordingly directions were issued to the petitioner to grant promotion to the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma on the post of Meter-Reader. Counsel submitted that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶27

Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶28

This fact is not in dispute that the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma was appointed as Work Charge Helper by the petitioner on 01.09.1965. This fact is also not in dispute that the witnesses i.e. U.C. Sharma and C.P. Gupta who have categorically stated in their cross-examination that during their tenure as J.En and A.En respectively, they have seen the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma working on the post of Meter-Reader since 07.05.1974 till

¶29

09.08.1977, 29.03.1979 till 03.i2.1982 and from 03.12.1982 onwards. Now the question which remains for consideration and adjudication of this Court is "Whether the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma was junior to Harbilas, to whom promotion on the post of Meter-Reader was given?"

¶30

From the documents and the evidence available on the record, it is clear that the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma was appointed on 01.09.1965 on the post of Work Charge Helper but neither side has produced any evidence with regard to the date of appointment of Harbilas, however, Harbilas has produced his affidavit before the Tribunal (Annexure-3) in which it was state' by him that he was appointed on 02.07.1965 and he was working on the post of Meter-Reader since the date of his appointment on various Sub-Divisions. Meaning thereby the said Harbilas was not junior to the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma, rather he was senior to the workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in recording the finding that Harbilas is junior to the workman Bhanwar Lal Sharma. 7. Next question before this Court is "Whether the workrn~ - Bhanwar Lal Sharma is entitled to be treated as working on the post of Meter-Reader?" This fact is not in dispute that the case of the workman-Bhanwar La1 Sharma is that he was also discharging the duties of Meter-Reader since considerable long time and this fact has not been contradicted by the petitioner, rather the witnesses produced by the workman i.e. U.C Sharma and C.P. Gupta have admitted in their cross-examination that during the course of their posting as J.En and A.En, in the office of petitioner in the year from 1974 till 1982, they have seen the workman-

¶31

[CW-457/19941

¶32

[2023/RTJP/010144].

¶33

,<I%.*' 'm .,,[2023/RTJP/010144]. q.5 &$?d&i 35)' ,,, .. [CW-457/19941 - q@$$ .. .& 3: ".* "I', %2b.%~* b Bhanwar Lal Sharma working 'ad discharging the duties of the post of Meter-Reader.

¶34

In view of the evidence of these witnesses, this Court comes to the conclusion that the wo.rkman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma was discharging the duties and functions of Meter-Reader. Hence, workman-Bhanwar Lal Sharma is entitled to get the benefit of the post of Meter-Reader after screening of his case.

¶35

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to conduct screening of the respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶36

With the aforesaid observations, the award dated 08.04.1991 stands modified.

¶37

Stay application and all pending application(s) (pending, if any) also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2190/1999

¶39

Since S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 457/1994 filed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board has been disposed of by this Court today with certain modifications of the award and directions, instant petition also stands disposed of with the same directions. 2. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶41

MR111

Rseb Ajmer v. Bhanwar Lal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rseb Ajmer v. Bhanwar Lal Sharma

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

Prahlad S/O Shri Banshi Bairwa Vs the Assistant Engineer

Heeralal S/O Shri Durjan Vs Assistant Engineer, Pachna

Ram Kumar S/O Shri Parmaram Vs Assistant Engineer

R.S.E.B. Vs Rashtriya Vidyut Karmachari Sangh

Udai Chand Vs State and Ors.

Bashir Khan S/O Shri Mamuda Khan Vs Assistant Engineer