ASSISTANT ENGINEER C A D KOTA Vs. DHAN KUNWAR
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on July 05,2006

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, C.A.D., KOTA Appellant
VERSUS
DHAN KUNWAR Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITY MANGLOR VS. PAHAL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-234] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI KUMAR KATIYAR VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
M RAMANATHAN VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-155] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M), GUJARAT VIDYUT BOARD VS. KIRITBHAI N.DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. STATE ELELCTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. VS. P.O. LABOUR COURT AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-381] [REFERRED TO]
NEK RAM VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPPWD [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-194] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-195] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KRISHAN SHARMA VS. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-239] [REFERRED TO]
CHHAGAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-9-66] [REFERRED]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD VS. H S SHARASCHANDRA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHD. ISRAR [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI RATTAN COTTON MILLS VS. P O LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL PURVIYA VS. THE JUDGE, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-303] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VS. NAMDEO GOVINDRAO NANDURKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD GHAZIPUR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES VS. O P CHAUHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, WARDHA VS. SURESH KESARIMAL CHURA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-174] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD VS. RATHOD ARUNBHAI BALDEVBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2006-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
Divisional Controller of KSRTC VS. Sri. H.M. Siddarameshwara [LAWS(KAR)-2013-10-314] [REFERRED TO]
S SEKAR VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-258] [REFERRED TO]
A NARAYANA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-354] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KANT MUDGAL VS. THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, KEVALADEO NATIONAL PARK AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-409] [REFERRED TO]
PARSA RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC DAVANGERE DIVISION VS. S H JAYARAMA, [LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-448] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHAND VS. P.S.E.B. [LAWS(HPH)-2007-5-102] [REFERRED]
STEEL AYTHORITY OF INDIA VS. SECRETARY GOVT OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
DTC VS. MOHAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER VS. PRESIDING OFFICER,LABOUR COURT, & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN SINGH PURVIYA VS. THE LEARNED LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA LAND RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. NIRMAL KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2007-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC VS. B SIDDAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-599] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPPWD, DHARAMPUR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-10-210] [REFERRED TO]
N S BHATNAGAR VS. INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC VS. P.PRABHAKAR [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-164] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CIRCLE DEPARTMENT VS. B SATHAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2007-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER VS. SUBHASH MAHADEV DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-2024-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. OM PARKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
M.C.D. VS. SURENDER KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-157] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BAORD VS. VINODBHAI BATUKBHARTHI AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL MANAGER H P F C VS. GARIBU RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2007-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [LAWS(HPH)-2023-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC VS. H.G. BASAVEGOWDA TRAFFIC CONTROLLER [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
HAKIM SINGH VS. ASSISTANT ENGINEER AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWARLAL PRAJAPAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-9-62] [REFERRED]
RATANLAL SHARMA VS. RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERALS LIMITED AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-7-108] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH JATAV AND ORS. VS. THE JUDGE, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-1-272] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HPFC VS. JASBIR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2007-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER PRAKASH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-126] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant- State questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge.
(2.)A brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the appellant would suffice: The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was appointed on 1-1-1978 as work-charged employee on temporary basis. Subsequently, she was declared quasi-permanent in service and worked up to 30-5-1983. Appellant terminated her service after paying one months salary in terms of Rule 26 of Rajasthan Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water-Works and Ayurvedic Departments, Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (in short the Rules). After about eight years dispute was raised by the respondent-workman. Initially no reference was made by the State Government. Subsequently, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan, under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). The reference was to the effect as to whether the employer was justified in retrenching the respondent. Several points were urged by the present appellant questioning legality of the reference. Primary stand related to the closure of the section of the Irrigation Department where the respondent was working. It was emphasized that the reference was sought for after a very long period of time i.e. about eight years. On both counts, it was submitted, that reference has to be answered against the workman and in favour of the employer. The Labour Court was of the view that though the claim was delayed, and so was the reference, yet the respondent-workman was not to be denied the benefits. It was held that Rule 26 of the Rules was similar in terms to Section 25F(a) of the Act. Even if the said provision of the Act is complied with, there was no compliance with the requirement of Section 25F(b), therefore, the reference was held maintainable and direction for payment of 30% back wages was given, along with direction for reinstatement.
(3.)Questioning correctness of the award a writ petition was filed before the High Court. Learned single Judge dismissed the same holding that merely because the claim was raised after about eight years, that did not disentitle the workman to get relief and the Labour Court was justified in awarding only 30% back wages. The orders of the Labour Court and the learned single Judge were questioned by filing appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned order the same was dismissed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.