Allowed

State v. Bhagirath and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2024CW/2847/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging an order of the Labour Court, Bharatpur. It held that a petitioner appointed under a temporary scheme was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09.05.2000 is set aside. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

State Vs Bhagirath and Ors. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:14382]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2847/2001

¶4

State Of Rajasthan through Assistant Engineer, Irrigation SubDivision, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bhagirath son of Gopi, R/o Village Baroli, Teh. Weir, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶8

The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra For Respondent(s) : None

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

20/03/2024

¶14

By way of the present petition, a challenge is raised against the order impugned dated 09.05.2000, as passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur in L.C.R. No. 112/1991.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court has ignored the objections taken by the petitioner qua the fact that the present matter does not fall under the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, as the petitioner was not a ‘workman’ and did not complete 240 days of employment in a year. It was further submitted that petitioner was appointed purely under a temporary scheme. In support of the contentions advanced, reliance was placed the dictum of this Court as enunciated in SBCWP No. 5643/2006 titled as Fatah Ram vs. Judge, Labour Court wherein it was held that appointments

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:14382]

[CW-2847/2001]

made under any temporary scheme or famine relief work cannot be of that nature which come within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as such appointments come to an end on completion of the assigned work and such daily wager cannot be said to have been working as a ‘workman’ in an industry.

¶20

In-spite of service of notice(s) upon the respondents, none has marked presence.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused through the record of the petition.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a further perusal of the record of the petition, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition, for the following reasons, namely:-

¶23

5.1 That the petitioner was appointed purely under a temporary scheme.

¶24

5.2 That the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Fatah Ram (Supra), in an identical lis , held that appointments made under any temporary scheme or famine relief work cannot be of that nature which come within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as such appointments come to an end on completion of the assigned work and such daily wager cannot be said to have been working as a ‘workman’ in an industry.

¶25

5.3 That accordingly, the lis did not fall under the ambit of the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court, as the petitioner was not a ‘workman’, as he did not complete 240 days of employment in a year.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:14382]

[CW-2847/2001]

Accordingly, in light of the observations made herein-above, the instant petition is allowed. As a result, the order impugned dated 09.05.2000 is set aside. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶31

DEEPAK/21

State v. Bhagirath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Bhagirath and Ors.

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

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal S/O Suresh Chand Agrawal, Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Divyansh Jharwal S/O Shri Purnesh Kumar @ Purnesh Jharwal Vs the Assistant General Manager (Hrm)

Sahil Kumar Mavaliya S/O Kalyan Sahay Mavaliya Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Pushpchand Son of Shri Harlal Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Satya Prakash Saxena Vs State Bank of India and Ros

Shesha Dan Vs the Judge, Labour Court Jaipur