Disposed

Jitendra Singh Rathore v. Urban Improvement Trust-State

Rajasthan HC20 Oct 2023SAW/820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a special appeal without deciding on merits. The Bench held that the Single Judge's order did not affirm the Labour Court's refusal to grant semi-permanent status and directed that the appellant's challenge be decided on its own merits.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the special appeal in limine with a direction to decide the pending writ petition on merits.

Jitendra Singh Rathore Vs Urban… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 820/2023

¶4

Jitendra Singh Rathore S/o Govind Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Through Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karmchari And Mazdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Urban Improvement Trust-State, Bhilwara, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

20/10/2023

¶13

This Special Appeal Writ is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 25.5.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.4340/2023 and other connected writ petitions.

¶14

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the respondent-UIT, has granted liberty to the appellant and other similarly situated persons to move representation before the respondent-UIT with a prayer for grant

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB]

¶17

[SAW-820/2023]

¶18

of minimum pay scale in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 within fixed time.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and other similarly situated persons have raised an industrial dispute with a prayer for issuing directions to the respondent-UIT to grant them semi permanent status. The appellant and other similarly situated persons have claimed before the Labour Court that they are working on the post of computer operator since 2009 and, therefore, they are entitled for semi permanent status. While answering the reference, the Labour Court, though denied benefit of semi permanent status to the appellant and other similarly situated persons, but ordered that the respondent-UIT shall pay salary to the appellant and other similarly situated persons by following the principle of equal pay for equal work.

¶20

The respondent-UIT has filed writ petitions challenging the award passed by the Labour Court only on a limited point that the Labour Court cannot direct the UIT to pay wages to the appellant and other similarly situated persons by following the principle of equal pay for equal work as the said direction is beyond the scope of the reference.

¶21

The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions while holding that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions to the respondent-UIT to pay wages to the appellant and other similarly situated persons by following the principle of equal pay for equal work, however, granted liberty to the appellant and other similarly situated persons to move

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB]

¶24

[SAW-820/2023]

¶25

representation before the UIT with a further direction to the UIT to consider and decide the said representation while taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra).

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that against the impugned award, the appellant has already preferred SBCWP No.12645/2019, which is pending consideration. It is submitted that by way of said writ petition, the appellant has challenged the legality of the award while contending that the Labour Court has wrongly denied benefit of semi permanent status to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant is apprehending that with the disposal of the writ petitions filed by the UIT, the merits of the writ petition filed by the appellant would be adversely affected.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has nowhere made any observation that the decision of the Labour Court of not granting semi permanent status to the appellant by the UIT is in accordance with law.

¶28

The learned Single Judge has simply dealt with the arguments of the respondent-UIT that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by giving directions to pay wages to the appellant and other similarly situated persons by following principle of equal pay for equal work.

¶29

We are of the opinion that the merits of the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court of not

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB]

¶32

[SAW-820/2023]

¶33

granting semi permanent status to the appellant and other similarly situated persons shall be decided on its own merits.

¶34

Needless to say, while deciding the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the finding of the Labour Court of not granting semi permanent status shall be considered by the Court without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned.

¶35

With these observations, this Special Appeal Writ is disposed of.

¶36

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶37

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶38

82-msrathore/-

Jitendra Singh Rathore v. Urban Improvement Trust-State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh Rathore v. Urban Improvement Trust-State

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

Dewa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kesa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chunnu @ Imran Vs State of Rajasthan

Brijesh @ Gokul Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh Vs State of Rajasthan