- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Learned Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan has appeared for the respondents.
(2.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.09.2013, by which he dismissed the writ petition as well as the stay application, for the prayers made in the writ petition, quoted as below: - (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the advertisement No. F. II (32) PHED/P.12 -13/3349, dated 08.08.2013 issued for the various posts including the post of Pump Drivers/Helpers may kindly be quashed and set aside subject to decision of Hon'ble Court in SBCWP No. 15098/2012; (i)(A) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the workers of the petitioner shramik union on the post of Pump Drivers -11 and Helpers prior to initiation of fresh appointment on the similar posts in pursuance of the advertisement dated 08.08.2013. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to extend bonus marks as well as relaxation in upper age limit for the workers indulged in similar work on the post of Pump Operators under Scheme of Janta Jal Yojna and other Schemes, against the posts advertised under advertisement dated 08.08.2013; (iii) Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (iv) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge held that the question of regularization of the members of the petitioner -Union has been taken up by the respondents, which is pending consideration at the highest level, and if that is so, then dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the rights of the members of the petitioner -Union, but a direction, as prayed in para. (i)(A) of the prayer clause, for regularization of their services prior to initiation of fresh appointment, cannot be granted. The writ petition was consequently dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submits that in the previous round of litigation, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 987/2012 -Superintending Engineer, PHED, Sikar vs. Prahlad Ray and others, and other connected Special Appeals, decided on 06.09.2012, that the Public Health and Engineering Department was the employer of the members of the petitioner -Union, serving as Pump Operators under the services of the Gram Panchayat, for running water pumps, as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act (Minimum Wages Act/1948), which means an employment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work, forming part of such employment. The Division Bench, in a matter arising out of an order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, observed as follows: - "The definition of the 'employee' as contained in Section 2(i) of the Act also makes it clear that employee means any person, who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled of unskilled, manual or clerical, in the scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed. Thus, the employment offered by the PHED through Gram Panchayat cannot absolve the PHED from its liability to make payment of wages, it remains employer as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. The employment even under any local authority is included in the Schedule. The 'scheduled employment' is defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, which means an employment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment, therefore, the submission raised by the learned Addl. Govt. Counsel appearing for the State is bereft of substance. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find the appeals to be devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. D.B. Civil Cross Objections Nos. 2/2012 has been filed by Prahlad Ray & others for granting the benefit of period of three years, which was granted by the Authority and has been confined to six months by the Single Bench. It is apparent from the first proviso contained in Section 20(2) of the Act that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages became payable. No satisfactory cause was given not to file application within a period of six months. Thus, the decision rendered by the Single Bench confining the minimum wages to six months is found to be appropriate and Cross Objections are, thus, liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, all the appeals as well as D.B. Civil Cross Objections Nos. 2/2012 are hereby dismissed. The Stay Applications are also dismissed." ;