- (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the award dated 19.10.2000, passed by the learned Industrial Dispute and Labour Judge, Kota holding that an employee employer relationship existed between the petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter 'RSRTC') and the respondent even prior to the respondent joining service of RSRTC under its conditional office order dated 09.03.1987 as a conductor on a daily wages of Rs.20/ . The learned labour court held that the respondent ought to be treated in employment with RSRTC effective 10.04.1987 when he tried to join service and RSRTC having wrongfully denied permission to the respondent to join its service was liable to pay special compensation of Rs.50,000/ to the respondent.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent, Hazari Lal Khatik, applied to be considered for appointment as a conductor with the RSRTC on daily wages of Rs.20/ in pursuance to an advertisement for the purpose which provided that prospective applicants apply for training to be appointed as conductor on RSRTC's buses and those applicants, who were successful in the one week's training would be appointed as conductors. It was however made clear that no stipend or any other payment of whatsoever nature would be payable to the applicants during the training period. It appears that the respondent, Hazari Lal Khatik, applied for consideration and successfully trained for a period of one week. RSRTC issued a conditional order of appointment on the post of conductor on daily wages @ Rs.20/ on 09.03.1987 on certain terms and conditions of which condition No.9 provided that in the event the successful candidates did not join their duties by 13.03.1987, the order of appointment would stand cancelled. It is important to note that the said condition is not under challenge before this Court. Admittedly the respondent failed to join service in terms of the letter of appointment dated 09.03.1987 by 13.03.1987. In the circumstances as obtaining, the offer made by RSRTC to the respondent under its office order dated 09.03.1987 went abegging and stood cancelled. The respondent however appears to have expressed his desire to join service with RSRTC in terms of the now cancelled order dated 09.03.1987 qua him on or about 10.04.1987. RSRTC on its part refused to allow the respondent to join service as a conductor on its buses on daily wages of Rs.20/ .
(3.) THAT it then appears that some time in the year 1996, a dispute was raised by the respondent under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The State Government in its wisdom vide order dated 28.02.1996 made a belated reference to the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Kota for adjudication of the claim of the respondent with regard to the purported illegality of RSRTC in refusing to allow the respondent to join service as a conductor in terms of the office order dated 09.03.1987 and the consequent entitlement of the respondent to be declared in employment of RSRTC effective 10.04.1987.;