State challenged a Labour Court award of back wages and 6% interest in favour of a workman, whose award had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the department's SLP. The court found the matter covered by its order dated 19.04.2024 in an identical petition and dismissed the writ petition and stay application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:20440]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5915/2024
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Block-Shahpura, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Bardu Mali S/o Sh. Ladu Lal Mali, Through Mahamantri Jalday Karmchari Sang R/o Sathana, District Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by Mr. S.R. Paliwal
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/05/2024
“5. It is undisputed that the award in favour of the workman was passed on 06.06.2016. The same was further assailed by the Department and ultimately, in the month of March 2022, SLP as preferred by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Meaning
(2 of 2)
[2024:RJ-JD:20440]
[CW-5915/2024]
thereby, the award dated 06.06.2016 attained finality for all purposes in the month of March 2022. Despite the same, the award was not complied with in its true letter and spirit. The order impugned was also passed on 25.05.2022, that is, after dismissal of the SLP as preferred by the Department. Vide the order impugned, three months’ time was granted to the Department to pay a meager amount of Rs.1,00,269/- to the workman which also was not paid.
6. The workman, who raised his cause way back in the year 2011 and had an award of year 2016 in his favour, was definitely entitled to the payment of back wages as directed by the learned Labour Court. The Department, who could have very well complied with the order within a period of three months from 25.05.2022, did not prefer to do so despite the SLP preferred by it having already been dismissed. Therefore, the award of interest at the rate of 6% by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be bad or in contravention to any law.
7. So far as the issue of the employee being a ‘work charge employee’ is concerned, the same was never an issue in consideration in the present matter and hence, cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage after the award in favour of the workman having attained a finality.
8. So far as the ground of the calculation being incorrect is concerned, how the same is so, was neither pointed out before the Tribunal nor has the counsel been able to point out before this Court. The calculation seems to be in total consonance with the award dated 06.06.2016 as nothing contrary has been proved on record.
9. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the clear view that the order impugned dated 25.05.2022 does not deserve any interference. The present writ petition is hence, dismissed.”
(DINESH MEHTA),J
50-Mak/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State's challenge to the Labour Court award granting back wages with 6% interest to a workman deserved interference when a co-ordinate bench had dismissed an identical writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Executive Engineer, PHED vs. Shri Gopal LalFollowed
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12416/2023 (Executive Engineer, PHED vs. Shri Gopal Lal)
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Block-Shahpura, District Bhilwara
Shri Bardu Mali S/o Sh. Ladu Lal Mali, Through Mahamantri Jalday Karmchari Sang
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
