Dismissed

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dhagla Ram

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2024SAW/901/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A workman retrenched by the Rajasthan road transport corporation was reinstated after a Labour Court award, having filed an affidavit forgoing financial benefits from retrenchment to reinstatement. The Corporation used the affidavit to deny selection grade increments. The Labour Court and Single Judge upheld the workman's claim, and this intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order was dism

What the court decided

AI extract

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3944-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 901/2022

¶4

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

¶5

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pali Depot, Pali.

¶6

Managing Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Dhagla Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram, Through Bhagirath Chandora Legal Secretary, Rajasthan Parivahan Karamchari Union, 516 Mill Gate, Subhash Nagar A, Pali (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Avin Chhangani
For Respondent(s)	: --

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order

¶13

25/01/2024

¶14

This intra court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2242/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants, assailing the validity of the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Jodhpur (for short ‘the Labour Court’), has been dismissed.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was working as a conductor with a Corporation, however, his services were retrenched by the Corporation vide order dated 18.09.1996. The reference made to the Labour Court was rejected and the

[2024:RJ-JD:3944-DB]

[SAW-901/2022]

(2 of 4)

Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement of the respondentworkman in services of the Corporation with all consequential benefits.

¶20

Pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent-workman was reinstated in services vide order dated 24.11.2009, however while reinstating the respondent-workman, an affidavit was submitted by him, wherein he has voluntarily stated that he will not claim any financial benefits from the date of retrenchment up to the date of reinstatement.

¶21

The respondent-workman, thereafter, has raised a dispute regarding granting benefit to him of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The appellant Corporation has disputed the said claim on the ground that since the respondentworkman has voluntarily forgo the financial benefits by filing an affidavit, he is not entitled for the benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service.

¶22

The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the reliance placed by the Corporation pertaining to the affidavit given by the respondent-workman accepting denial of financial benefit from the year 1996 till reinstatement pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-B(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was void as the same was contrary to the provisions of Section 16(3) and 28 of the Contract Act.

¶23

The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has observed that from the affidavit filed by the respondentworkman, it can only be gathered that he agreed to leave his financial benefits arising from his reinstatement only and the same cannot be used by the Corporation to deny the benefit of

[2024:RJ-JD:3944-DB]

[SAW-901/2022]

(3 of 4)

continuity in service. It is observed that once the services are taken as continuous, the natural consequence whereof would be that the workman is entitled for selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that the terms of the affidavit cannot be read to mean that the respondent-workman agreed that the period from 1996 till his reinstatement is dies non .

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent-workman was suspended from service for 1336 days and from this fact, it can be derived that his services were not satisfactory. Learned counsel has submitted that as per the office order dated 27.04.1993 issued by the Corporation in respect of fixation of pay in selection grades, Clause 7 clearly provides that selection grade in terms of this order is granted only to the employees, whose record of service is satisfactory. It is also submitted that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge.

¶29

We have considered the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the view that the same is without any merit. Before the Labour Court, the case of the Corporation was that since the respondent-workman accepted reinstatement while foregoing the financial benefits and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of benefit of selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. It was not the case of the Corporation before the Labour Court that as the services of the respondent-workman were not satisfactory, he is not entitled for grant of benefit of selection grades.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:3944-DB]

[SAW-901/2022]

In view of the above discussion, we do not find infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, hence, this intra court appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶34

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶35

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶36

2-DivyaJ/nitin/-

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dhagla Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dhagla Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanda Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharvan Nath Sidh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajni Kardam Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Kiran Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Danaram Vs the State of Rajasthan