This court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State, holding that the issue was covered on all fours by a coordinate bench order which had already dismissed a similar petition based on the finality of a labor award and non-compliance by the Department.
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:20443]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5926/2024
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Block-Shahpura, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
Durgalal Mali S/o Jagdish Mali, Through Mahamantri, Jalday Shramik Sang, Bhilwara, R/o Bhagwanpura (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by Mr. S.R. Paliwal
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/05/2024
(2 of 2)
[2024:RJ-JD:20443]
[CW-5926/2024]
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
51-Mak/-
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DURGALAL MALI
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
