STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. DEEN DAYAL

LAWS(RAJ)-2009-8-102

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Decided on August 26,2009

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant

VERSUS

DEEN DAYAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by State of Rajasthan against the award dated 23.4.2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner for payment of salary to the respondent-workman with pay scale of Rs.110-230/- plus dearness allowance w.e.f. 1.9.1968. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that entry made in the service book of respondent that he was appointed as Mistry w.e.f. 14.2.1968 was doubtful and that petitioner was not satisfied about the same. At one stage, a decision was taken to hold enquiry and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in giving the pay scale of Rs.110-230/- w.e.f. 1.9.1968. It was contended that comparison of respondent with other treating him senior, who were working to the post of Mistry was not justified particularly when respondent was working on the post of Mate for the period from 28.2.1970 to 11.12.1970 and declared semi-permanent on the post of Mistry on 16.5.1968. Learned counsel submitted that writ petition be allowed and the award passed by Tribunal be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Tribunal was on the basis of evidence led before it, was satisfied that respondent was actually appointed as Mistry on 14.2.1968 and that despite the petitioner stating before the Tribunal that they were intending to hold enquiry, no enquiry was ever hold till more than five years after such assertion made by witness of the management before the Tribunal. When the award was passed till then no such enquiry was ever held. The witness of the department namely; Gopi Lal in his cross-examination clearly admitted that his version that respondent worked as Mate was based on such entry made in the service book and he did not have any personal knowledge about the same. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that Tribunal was satisfied on the basis of evidence that was led before it that Mistries junior to petitioner namely; Naveen Chandra, Rajendra Singh, Rajendra Prasad, Purshottam, Hariram and Rambabu were already granted pay scale of Rs.110-230/- and thereafter also other Mistries namely; Ishwar Dayal, Naveen Chand Sharma, Mathur Prasad were also initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs.110-230/-. The award of Tribunal does not, therefore, require any interference. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that version of department that entry with regard to appointment of respondent as Mistry w.e.f. 14.2.1968 was erroneously made, was not believed by Tribunal because no enquiry whatsoever as alleged by them was held into the matter till the award was passed on 23.4.2002. Such stand was taken by the Tribunal in reply to the statement of claim soon after the reference was made to the Tribunal on 20.10.1993, therefore, for such a long period of time no enquiry was held. The Tribunal was fully justified in holding that respondent was rightly described as Mistry. The Tribunal has also found that many of his juniors were paid pay scale of Rs.110-230/- and that assertion to the contrary made that respondent working as Mate from the period of 28.2.1970 to 11.12.1970 was also not found proved. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence that was adduced before it was justified in holding that respondent was wrongly denied the pay scale of Rs.110-230/- w.e.f. 1.9.1968. I do not find any such infirmity in the award of Tribunal as may warrant interference of this Court. This writ is devoid of merit, which is accordingly dismissed.mukesh_c_ ;

Click here to view full judgement.