Sup. Geolo.Phos. Mines Andgeo. ... vs Kanhaiya Lal Dangi And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 18322 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2035/1997

Sup. Geolo.phos. Mines Andgeo. Dep.

----Petitioner Versus Kanhaiya Lal Dangi And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat for Mr. RK Rathi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

02/12/2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner- Department being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.09.1996 passed by the

Labour Court, Udaipur answering the reference in favour of the

respondents.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent- Kanhaiya Lal

Dangi has raised a dispute through President, Mining Department

Employees Union, Udaipur that he is working as a daily wages

employee in the Bhanwarkotda Rock Phosphate Project since

1.1.1985. It is alleged that though the respondent - Kanhaiya Lal

Dangi has completed three years of service, but the petitioner-

Department has not granted him semi-permanent status.

The conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer

were failed and, thereafter, a reference was made to the Labour

Court to the effect that "as to whether the action of the petitioner-

Department of       not   granting semi-permanent status                  to   the




                                         (2 of 3)               [CW-2035/1997]

respondent - Kanhaiya Lal Dangi is legal or not and if not, then

what reliefs he is entitled to get". The learned Labour Court having

going through the evidence produced on behalf of the parties,

particularly taking into consideration the muster rolls (Exhibit A-1

to A-28) produced by the petitioner - Department has recorded a

finding to the effect that respondent - Kanhaiya Lal Dangi has

worked more than 300 days from January, 1985 to November,

1985; 244 days in the year 1986; 271 days in the year 1987 and

worked for more than three months in the year 1988. After

observing this, the Labour Court has found that the respondent -

Kanhaiya Lal Dangi has worked for more than 240 days in three

calendar years and as per Rule 3 of the Mines & Geology

Department Work Charge Employee (Service Conditions) Order,

1974, he is entitled for semi-permanent status.

The Labour Court while holding the action of the petitioner-

Department of not granting semi-permanent status to the

respondent - Kanhaiya Lal Dangi illegal has directed the petitioner

- Department to grant him semi-permanent status and also

directed to pay him all the consequential benefits for which he is

entitled. So far as reinstatement of the respondent - Kanhaiya Lal

Dangi is concerned, the Labour Court has concluded that as the

reference was not in relation to his reinstatement and as he has

already initiated proceedings under Section 33(a) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, there is no requirement of passing any order

regarding his reinstatement.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the impugned award, I am of the opinion that the finding

of facts have been recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of

(3 of 3) [CW-2035/1997]

the documentary evidence produced before it, the impugned

award is not liable to be interfered with.

It is also noticed that the impugned award was passed on

17.09.1996 and as no stay was granted by this Court while

admitting the writ petition, in all possibility the award passed by

the Labour Court might have been complied with by this time.

With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

1-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)