Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ex Directoradmn R S R T C And Anr vs Hakim Mohd And Anr on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 3) [SAW-627/2009]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 627/2009
1. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Bhilwara
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sh. Hakim Mohd. S/o Sh. Ramjan Khan, Driver, Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara Depot.
2. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara
----respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Acharya through VC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
11/08/2021
The matter comes up on an application for early hearing of
the case.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the
respondent-workman has been superannuated in the year 2020
and presently he is suffering from cancer, therefore, he has prayed
that the matter may be heard and decided at the earliest.
In view of the submissions made, the application for early
hearing is allowed.
With the consent of the parties, the appeal itself is taken up
for hearing at this stage.
The present appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 13.05.2009 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the
(2 of 3) [SAW-627/2009]
appellants against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara
dated 26.03.2007 was dismissed and the findings recorded by the
Tribunal were upheld.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted
that the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ petition,
had not taken into consideration the detailed facts and fell into
error. He submitted that the order of regularization of the services
of the respondent-workman could not be passed w.e.f. 17.08.1993
as the appointment of the respondent-workman was made only on
daily wage basis. He further submitted that the learned Industrial
Tribunal had also not appreciated the facts in correct perspective
and thereby committed an error while answering the reference by
giving a direction to the appellants to treat the services of the
respondent - workman to be in the regular pay-scale w.e.f.
17.08.1993.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - workman
has supported the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and
learned Single Judge of this Court and has submitted that
although the workman was appointed on compassionate grounds
w.e.f. 12.02.1992, but his services were regularized when he was
re-appointed on 17.08.1993. He submitted that the learned
Tribunal rightly answered the reference made to it and correctly
ordered for treating the services of workman in regular pay-scale
w.e.f. 17.08.1993.
We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and we
have examined the pleadings on record including the order passed
by the learned Single Judge as well as the award dated
26.03.2007.
(3 of 3) [SAW-627/2009]
Learned Tribunal, in detail, has examined the facts by
framing the issues and has correctly adjudicated the reference
after analyzing the evidence and pleadings brought on record.
Learned Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the
workman was appointed on 17.08.1993 in the regular pay-scale,
as per prevailing orders holding the field at the relevant time.
Therefore, the workman is entitled to be regularized w.e.f.
17.08.1993. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal
does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The order
impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.05.2009
does not call for any interference.
The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
27-anil/payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
