- (1.) To question correctness of the judgment dated 23.5.2014 passed by learned Single Bench, this appeal is preferred. The appeal is barred by limitation from 105 days. The office has also pointed out certain other defects. Ignoring the defects pointed out by the Registry, we have examined merits of the appeal. By the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench refused to interfere with the award dated 25.4.2013 passed by learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara. In brief, facts of the case are that the appropriate Government by its notification dated 2.3.2010 referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Court in the terms that: "Whether the employer Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Shahpura Division is justified in not awarding semipermanent status on the post of Fitter to its workman Mr. Kailash Chand S/o. Mr. Ladu Lal Kumawat (dispute of whom has been raised by Vice President, Jaldaay Karmchari Sangh, Bhilwara) from 1.1.2001? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled?"
(2.) The workman in his statement of claim stated that he was working with the Public Health Engineering Department from the year 1999 but semipermanent status was not given to him, though he completed 2 years of service. It was asserted that as per Rule 3 (3) of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Land Development (Programme) Circle C.A.D. Chambal Department Kota (including its Divisions/Sub-Divisions), Water Works, Ayurvedic and Forest Department (excluding Departmental Operation Circle Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1994'), he was entitled to have semi-permanent status on 1.1.2001.
(3.) The employer contested the claim with assertion that the workman was employed through a placement agency, i.e. Reliance Security Agency, and therefore, he was not entitled for grant of semi-permanent status.;