Dismissed

Suraj Karan and Anr. v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2024CW/4036/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal order regarding work charge employees. The Court held that the Screening Committee's decision to regularize employees with effect from 01.04.1989 was valid and could not be displaced by parity arguments from the Settlement Committee.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as no reason is found to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts regarding the validity of the Screening Committee's decision.

Suraj Karan and Anr. Vs Industrial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20563]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4036/2002

¶4

Suraj Karan S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Sapola, Panchayat Samiti Aasind, District Bhilwara. 2. Sukhdev S/o Shri Hardevji Sen, aged about 45 years, R/o Ekalsingha, Panchayat Samiti Bhinay (Ajmer).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶8

The Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, (Constituent of Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bhilwara now), through Superintending Engineer, Opposite Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Counsel
	assisted byMs. Savita Panwar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Choudhary

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

08/05/2024

¶14

By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 30.08.2001 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

¶15

Precisely narrated facts appertain are that the petitioners raised an industrial dispute in relation to the grant of regular payscale (Helper Grade-II) to them w.e.f. 01.04.1989, as against their claim of grant of regular pay-scale w.e.f. 01.04.1982, on completion of two years.

¶16

Backdrop facts, which propelled the petitioners to approach the learned Labour Court were that the petitioners were appointed

[2024:RJ-JD:20563]

[CW-4036/2002]

(2 of 5)

as work charge employees by the respondent – Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Lmt. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Nigam’) on 01.04.1979. The petitioners continued as such, whereafter they were granted regular pay-scale w.e.f. 01.04.1989.

¶21

The respondents had constituted a committee vide order No. 1009 dated 02.03.1989, whereafter the Board in its meeting (387^th Meeting) held on 05.06.1989 decided to allow regular payscale to the work charge employees, who have completed two years continuous service with effect from 01.04.1989. Consequently, pursuant to the decision dated 05.06.1989 taken in 387^th Meeting, the petitioners’ services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1989.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved with such decision, the petitioners approached the Settlement Committee, which by way of its order dated 12.12.1997 directed the respondent – Nigam to grant regular pay-scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1982. While passing such order, the Settlement Committee relied upon the decision taken by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) in cases of other employees, who were given regular pay-scale from 01.04.1982.

¶23

Feeling aggrieved by passing of the order dated 12.12.1997, the respondent – Nigam preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee, which allowed the appeal by way of its order dated 04.08.1999 and set aside the order dated 12.12.1997 passed by the Settlement Committee.

¶24

While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Committee held that the Settlement Committee has erred in granting benefits to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1982. The Appellate Committee held that

[2024:RJ-JD:20563]

[CW-4036/2002]

(3 of 5)

the same was contrary to applicable regulations and the minutes of 387^th Meeting dated 05.06.1989.

¶29

Feeling aggrieved of such decision, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute, which was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 73/1992 (President, Rajasthan Vidhyut Shramik Sangh, Bhilwara vs. Superintending Engineer, RSEB, Bhilwara). The learned Member of the Tribunal after dealing with the facts on record, answered the reference in affirmative holding that the action of Superintending Engineer in not confirming the employees on completion of two years is valid.

¶30

Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners challenged the order of the Tribunal by contending that as a matter of law and parity, the petitioners ought to have been granted regular pay-scale on completion of two years’ continuous service from the date of initial appointment. He submitted that the respondent – Board vide its decision dated 05.06.1989 cannot take away statutory right of getting regular pay-scale of an employee, which right provides that a work charge employee is to be given regular pay-scale on completion of two years’ service.

¶31

Mr. Vikram Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the concurrent finding of facts have been recorded by the Appellate Committee so also by the learned Labour Court that respondent – Board in its 387^th meeting held on 05.06.1989 has taken a decision to regularize employees w.e.f. 01.04.1989 and unless such decision of Screening Committee is challenged or set aside, the petitioners cannot get any relief.

[2024:RJ-JD:20563]

[CW-4036/2002]

(4 of 5)

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶36

Indisputably, the petitioners have been conferred regular pay-scale w.e.f. 01.04.1989 pursuant to the decision taken by the Screening Committee, which was constituted vide Order No. 1009 dated 02.03.1989.

¶37

In the opinion of this Court, when the Screening Committee was constituted by the respondent – Nigam, which has examined the eligibility of the candidates and considered the financial position of the Board and has taken an in principle decision to give regular pay-scale to the petitioners and similarly situated candidates w.e.f. 01.04.1989, no fault can be found in the decision of the respondents. A uniform decision has been taken and no discrimination has been meted out to the petitioners.

¶38

It is to be noted that the decision taken by the Board in its Meeting dated 05.06.1989 has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 10.10.2017 passed in a bunch of special appeal, lead case being Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rajasthan Vidhyut Mazdoor Congress Branch (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.

¶39

203/2006). The Division Bench has approved the decision of the Board after dealing with each aspect. That apart, the decision of the Screening Committee referred in the order of Appellate Committee has not been challenged by the petitioners on permissible ground.

¶40

Hence, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Committee was fully justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent – Nigam. The decision of Settlement Committee is

[2024:RJ-JD:20563]

[CW-4036/2002]

(5 of 5)

based upon cases of similarly situated persons, but said view is not in conformity with law, because those persons, who had been given regular pay-scale on completion of two years were having award of the Labour Court in their favour, whereas the petitioners had not approached the Labour Court before going to Settlement Committee. Petitioners’ right for regular pay-scale was firstly decided by the Settlement Committee itself, which was bound by the decision of the Board. In absence of any adjudication in petitioners’ favour, the Settlement Committee could not have drawn parity in the teeth of the decision of the Screening Committee, duly approved by the Board.

¶45

This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Appellate Committee so also by the learned Tribunal, more particularly when the decision of the Screening Committee has not been challenged. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶46

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶47

5-Mak/-

Suraj Karan and Anr. v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Karan and Anr. v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kishore Hada Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gopal Lal Banjara Vs the Registrar

Kamlesh Kumar Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Dhabhai Vs Sukhveer Singh Chaudhary

Executive Engineer Vs Shri Bardu Mali

Executive Engineer Vs Durgalal Mali