State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Kishore
2021 Latest Caselaw 5268 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1593/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Health Engineering Department Through Soni Lal Mahawer S/o Lt. Bhainroolal Aged About 59 Years, Currently Working As XEN Shahpura, Bhilwara.

2. Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Circle, Bhilwara.

3. Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Circle Baneda

----Petitioners Versus Ram Kishore S/o Madan Lal Vyas, Through General Secretary, Water Workers Union, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

24/02/2021

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated

06.12.2019, passed by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as "the

Labour Court") in an application filed by the respondent-employee

under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947").

2. The precise facts germane for the present purposes are that

pursuant to respondent's request, a reference came to be made to

the Labour Court and a case - Labour Dispute Case No.10/2020

was registered. Vide award dated 28.11.2016 the Labour Court

(2 of 5) [CW-1593/2021]

allowed the application and ordered reinstatement of the

respondent from the date of his termination (17.08.2011)

alongwith 50% back wages.

3. State's writ petition against the judgment and award dated

28.11.2016 has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated

08.12.2017 and intra-Court appeal filed thereagainst too has been

dismissed by the Division Bench on 28.02.2019.

4. Meanwhile, as the State did not comply with the award

aforesaid, the respondent filed an application under Section

33C(2) of the Act of 1947 and claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,538/- as

his due wages.

5. A reply to the claim petition was filed by the present

petitioner-State. It would not be out of place to reproduce the

reply herein extenso; hence the same is being done.

"egksn;th]

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVes.V vkWQ Dyse dk foi{kh x.k vksj ls tokc ,oa foi{kh dh vksj ls LVsVes.V vkWQ Dyse fuEukuqlkj izLrqr dj lknj fuosnu gS fd %& 1- ;g fd pj.k la[;k 01 esa of.kZr izdj.k [email protected] esa fnukad 28-11-16 dks fu.kZ; esa izkFkhZ Jfed lsok i`Fkd djus dh frfFk 17-08-2011 ls ysdj lsok esa iqu% fu;ksftr djus dh frfFk rd lsok i`Fkd djrs le; ns; osru dh nj ls dqy osru dh 50 izfr"kr jkf"k foi{kh fu;kstd ls izkIr djus dk fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk Lohdkj gSA 2- ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr iapkV dk fof/kor izdk"ku jkT; ljdkj ds }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS tks Lohdkj gSA 3- ;g fd izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 12-07-2017 dks foi{kh ds dk;kZy; esa dksbZ izkFkZuk i= izLrqr ugha fd;kA ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 28-11-2016 ds fo:) foHkkx ds funsZ"kkuqlkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa ,l-ch-lh- fjV fiVh"ku la[;k [email protected] jkT; ljdkj cuke jkefd"kksj O;kl iq= enuyky O;kl nk;j dh xbZ FkhA bl vihy dk fu.kZ; fnukad 08-12-2017 dks gks tkus ls bl fu.kZ; ds fo:) Mh-ch- Lis"ky nk;j dh gqbZ gSA Mh-ch- Lis"ky esa nk;j vihy ij fu.kZ; gksuk visf{kr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j vihy ij fu.kZ;

(3 of 5) [CW-1593/2021]

rFkk jkT; ljdkj dh Lohd`rh vuqlkj gh fu.kZ; 28-11-2016 dh ikyuk dh tk;sxhA 4- ;g fd izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk izLrqr LVsVes.V ,usDpj 01 esa dh xbZ x.kuk lgh ugha gksus ls Lohdkj ugha gSA fnukad%& 26-02-2019 gLrk{kj LFkku % xqykciqjk ¼ lqjs"k yksxs"kk ½ lgk;d vfHk;Urk tu LokLF; vfHk;kaf=d foHkkx] mi[k.M cusM+k "

6. The learned Labour Court passed the order dated

06.12.2019 and directed the State to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,538/-

along with interest @ 6% per annum, while also imposing a cost

of Rs.5,000/- upon the concerned Executive Engineer.

7. On 05.02.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the

State to file a copy of the sanction given by the State for filing the

writ petition so also an additional affidavit, as to whether

compliance of the order impugned has been made by the State.

8. Mr. Deepak Chandak, associate to Mr. Pankaj Sharma,

learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State

invited Court's attention towards sanction dated 06.03.2020,

issued by the State for filing the writ petition and informed that

the State is under process of complying with the order dated

06.12.2019.

9. Be that as it may.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State was asked to

advance his arguments on merit of the case.

11. Mr. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner-State argued

that the Labour Court has committed an error in accepting the

claim/application filed by the respondent-employee as it is.

(4 of 5) [CW-1593/2021]

12. According to him, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to

determine the amount payable instead of accepting the claim as a

gospel truth. He emphasised that the respondent has claimed

wages/salary equal to what is payable to a skilled worker, whereas

the respondent was an unskilled workman. He submitted that as

per notification issued by the State Government, the respondent

was not entitled for the wages as claimed.

13. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, passed in the case of

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak & Ors. reported

in 1995 1 SCC 235 and submitted that proceedings under Section

33C(2) of the Act of 1947 are like execution proceedings.

14. Heard.

15. A perusal of the facts and the material available on record

shows that in response to the claim filed by the respondent-

labourer, the State has filed a cursory, rather shoddy reply; so

much so, even the fact that the claimant was an unskilled

workman has not been indicated, much less disputing quantum of

claim.

16. Such being the position, the Labour Court had no other

option but to accept the application filed by the respondent-

claimant.

17. The petitioner-State filed an additional affidavit and

submitted that they have calculated a sum of Rs.1,76,193.50/-

payable to the respondent-claimant being 50% of Rs.3,52,337/-.

18. In considered opinion of this Court, since the State has not

objected the claim made by the respondent and has not even

brought it as a fact that the respondent was an unskilled

(5 of 5) [CW-1593/2021]

workman, their stand challenging the quantum of amount is

untenable.

19. In a writ of certiorari filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, this Court cannot take cognizance of the

fact, which was not even pleaded before the Labour Court.

20. That apart, it is surprising to note that the sanction was

issued by the State Government way back on 06.03.2020 and the

present writ petition has been filed by the State on 22.01.2021,

which shows lack-lusture attitude of the officer(s) concerned, who

have not only ignored the rights of the respondent but have also

ignored their own responsibility of taking up legal recourse with

requisite promptitude.

21. Cost of Rs.5000/- has already been imposed by the Court

below upon the concerned Executive Engineer, hence, this Court

does not wish to penalise him anymore.

22. The writ petition is dismissed.

23. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 35-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)