Rajasthan High Court
Yashwant Singh Yadav vs District Ayurved Officer Ayurv on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6744/2005
Yashwant Singh Yadav Son Of Shri Amilal Yadav, Ladpur, Tehsil
Bansur, Distt. Alwar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District Ayurved Officer, Ayurved Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Near Tilak Marg, Alwar
2. Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, DGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
23/02/2021
The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as
under:
"i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction
the impugned judgment dated 8/4/2005 passed by
the labour court be quashed and setasided and the
petitioner be given regular pay scale w.e.f. 28/11/85
from the date similarly situated persons has so been
given with all consequential benefits and claim of the
petitioner filed before the learned court may be
allowed with all consequential benefits.
ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems think fit and proper my be
passed in favour of the petitioner.
iii) Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded in
favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while this
High Court had set aside his termination order and had directed
(2 of 3) [CW-6744/2005]
him to be reinstated, the respondents have not paid any salary
after 1989.
Learned counsel submits that after passing of the award,
which has been challenged by him, the respondents are not
allowing the petitioner to perform his duties nor they are allowing
him to mark his attendance. While the petitioner is marking his
attendance separately in the separate register, however, no salary
has been paid to him.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is being treated
as part-time employee although he was appointed in the year
1985 and persons later-on appointed after him have been
regularised.
I have considered the submissions.
The submissions raised before this Court go beyond the
prayer as quoted above and cannot be looked into the present writ
petition. So far as award passed by the Judge, Labour Court,
Bharatpur is concerned, this court finds that the terms of
reference before the Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur was as
under:
^^Jfed ;'koUrflag ;kno iq= vehyky ;kno dh
fu;kstd ftyk vk;qosZn vf/kdkjh] vyoj ,oa
funs'kd] vk;qosZn foHkkx] vtesj }kjk fnukad 29-11-
95 ls fu;fer lsok ?kksf"kr u djuk ,oa leLr osru
ifjykHk u nsuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ
jkgr o jkf'k dk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA**
The Judge, Labour Court has answered the same against the
petitioner-workman on the ground that the Division Bench of this
court in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner has treated
the petitioner as a part-time employee, therefore, the claim made
by the petitioner before the Judge, Labour Court on semi-
(3 of 3) [CW-6744/2005]
permanency or permanency treating him as work-charged
employee has been found to be contrary to the findings of the
High Court and the same were, therefore, not accepted. The
award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, does not warrant any
interference.
As regards the grievance of the petitioner relating to his
wrongful oral termination as well as not allowing him to work and
regularisation, the petitioner is always free to take up his
grievances by way of separate claim before the Labour Court. If
such a claim is filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court shall
accept the claim directly without forcing him to go for conciliation
proceedings and examine the same and decide the dispute
preferable within a period of six months. Delay in filing the claim
shall not come in way on account of the pendency of the present
writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
observations.
All pending applications also stands disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
POORAN CHAND GUPTA /6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
