Dismissed

Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. President, Bijli Karamchari Sangh (Hms)

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2025CW/12329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an Industrial Tribunal award granting regularization to a workman. The petitioner argued res judicata applied as the issue was raised earlier. The High Court held prior awards addressed termination while this one addressed regularization, treating them as distinct disputes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with pending applications, if any. No order as to costs.

Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44845]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12329/2025

¶4

Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Tonk (Formerly Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Mandal, Niwai,tonk).

¶5

Assistant Engineer, ( O And M) Rural, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Niwai, Distt. Tonk (Formerly Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Rajay Vidhut Mandal, Niwai, Tonk )

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

President, Bijli Karamchari Sangh (Hms), Tonk (Workman Kaluram- Helper, Since Deceased During Pendency) Through Legal Representatives- 1/1 Manni Devi Wife Of Late Shri Kalu 1/2 Sopyari Daughter Of Late Shri Kalu 1/3 Rampyari Daughter Of Late Shri Kalu 1/4 Jagdish Son Of Late Shri Kalu 1/5 Manisha Daughter Of Late Shri Kalu 1/6 Shivraj Son Of Late Shri Kalu All Residents Of Village Annapurna Dungari, Bambore Road, Tonk, Distt. Tonk.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat with Mr. P.S. Naruka For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

06/10/2025

¶14

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with

¶15

following prayers:

¶16

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to the prescribed authority, and the present petition may kindly be allowed and:

¶17

The impugned award dated 06.08. 2024 be quashed and set aside. II. Any other writ or direction that the court deems fit, just and

(2 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:44845]

[CW-12329/2025]

proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

III. Costs may kindly be also awarded in favor of the petitioner.”

¶23

Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that on the basis of a reference made in 1995, an award has been passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 06-08-2024. He further submitted that, as per the dispute raised by the Workman, a previous award was passed in his favour, but again the dispute has been raised by the Workman. He further submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that earlier a dispute was with regard to reinstatement, wherein no relief of regularization or permanency were allowed but in the subsequent reference, the benefits of regularization and permanency are claimed and the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law. He further submitted that the petitioner-organization has its own set of rules and regulations and is governed by the same set of rules and regulations. He also submitted that without considering that the Workman was not entitled to any regularization or further benefit as such relief was not granted by the earlier award, has granted relief, which the Workman was not entitled to from the Industrial Tribunal.

¶24

Learned Counsel further referred to the judgment in the case

¶25

of Workman of the Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd., reported as 1974 (4) SCC 681 , and submitted that the principle of res judicata is applicable in the instant case and the Labour Court has failed to consider the principle of res judicata , as the issue of regularization

[2025:RJ-JP:44845]

[CW-12329/2025]

(3 of 6)

and permanency has been raised in the previous proceedings before the Labour Court. He further submitted that the petitioner has raised a legal ground and the award is not only liable to be set aside but also required to be stayed immediately.

¶30

Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

¶31

The facts available on record clearly indicate that Workman Kalu Ram has claimed that he was appointed as a helper on 03-4-1974 and was terminated on 20-9-1976. The Workman raised a dispute and the same was referred as LCR No. 92/1981 to the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an award on 01-5-1986. Despite efforts to implement the award, the Workman filed an application under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the Labour Department and a prosecution sanction was issued against the employer, and by order dated 14-2-1992, the Workman was taken on duty on 19-2-1992.

¶32

The Workman claimed that after completion of 2 years he was not made semi-permanent and after completion of 10 years he was not made permanent. The Workman claimed that in 1997 he was made semi-permanent, though his services were continued by the award. The Workman claimed that he was entitled to be treated as semi-permanent since 13-5-1976 and from 13-5-1986 he was to be treated as permanent. The Workman also claimed that he was entitled to service benefits available to him after 9, 18 and 27 years

(4 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:44845]

[CW-12329/2025]

of service. The dispute was raised through the union and the same was referred on 22-5-1995 to the Industrial Tribunal.

¶37

During the pendency of the reference, a statement of claim was filed and a reply was filed by the present petitioner. Both the parties led their evidence. The Workman was not present for evidence, as he died during the pendency of the reference and his legal heirs were brought on record. The Tribunal passed the award in favour of the Workman.

¶38

The only legal ground which has been raised in the instant petition is whether the principle of res judicata is applicable or not. The petitioner has referred the judgment in the case of Workman of Straw Board (supra) to buttress his arguments.

¶39

The Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents re-agitation of the same dispute which has already been decided between the parties. In order to apply the principle of res judicata , the following five essential conditions must be satisfied:

¶40

(i). The matter must be directly and substantially in issue in both the proceedings, (ii). It must have been heard and finally decided, (iii). The prior decision must be by a competent court, (iv). The parties must be same or in privity,

¶41

(v). The subsequent proceeding must arise from the same cause of action.

¶42

The doctrine rests upon three maxims. Firstly, no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. Secondly, public interest demands an end to litigation. Thirdly, a judgment is taken as true.

[2025:RJ-JP:44845]

[CW-12329/2025]

(5 of 6)

Here in this case, when we apply the principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred by learned counsel for the petitioner and peruse the award, then a fact is apparent on record that the award dated 01-51986 primarily concerns the termination order passed against several persons, including workman Kalu Ram, and the dispute was raised by Rashtriya Bijli Karamchari Sangh. The termination order was examined by the Labour Court, Jaipur, and the reference was answered in the manner that the termination of Kalu Ram, Kishan Lal, Bhavar Lal, and Sattar was declared as illegal and contrary to law. The Labour Court directed not only reinstatement of all four workmen but also directed payment of wages and other facilities.

¶47

The reference dated 02-6-1981 clearly indicates that it only pertains to the termination order and not more than termination. The Labour Court, in the award dated 01-51986, has only considered the issue of termination of workmen contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶48

The reference dated 22-5-1995 indicates that after completion of two years, the workman was not made semipermanent and thereafter permanent, as a result, his benefits were withheld by the employer. In the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that he was entitled to semi-permanent status from 03-4-1976 and permanent status from 03-4-1984. The Tribunal, considering the dispute, has granted the status.

[2025:RJ-JP:44845]

[CW-12329/2025]

(6 of 6)

The material on record clearly indicates that both the references are for different disputes and the awards are in different aspects, therefore, the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the instant case.

¶53

There is no other ground on which the writ petition requires consideration by this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶54

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is hereby dismissed with pending applications, if any.

¶55

No order as to costs.

¶56

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶57

CHETNA BEHRANI /35

Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. President, Bijli Karamchari Sangh (Hms)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. President, Bijli Karamchari Sangh (Hms)

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

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shishram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vishwambhar Dayal Sharma S/O Sohanlal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rathore Chand @ Sammi @ Aslam Mohammad S/O Angrejchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Lata Prajapati D/O Nabab Singh Prajapati Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manisha Daughter of Tulsi Ram Nayak Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Verma S/O Shri Devilal Vs Managing Director, Sawai Madhopur and Karoli District Milk Production