Urban Improvement Trust, ... vs Gopal Lal (2023/Rjjd/017291)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5265 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017291]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4524/2023

Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhashnagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Gopal Lal S/o Devi Das Kamad, via Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karamchari and Majdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4340/2023 Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhashnagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Jitendra Singh Rathore S/o Govind Singh, via Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karamchari and Majdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4353/2023 Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhashnagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Jagdish Prajapat S/o Ratan Lal Prajapat, via Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karamchari and Majdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4591/2023 Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhashnagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Prakash Ashwani S/o Vasudev Ashwani, via Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karamchari and Majdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4615/2023 Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhashnagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

[2023/RJJD/017291] (2 of 6) [CW-4524/2023]

Mukesh Kharol S/o Narayan Lal, via Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karamchari and Majdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram Near Water Tank, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4744/2023 Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara. Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhashnagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Ranveer Singh Bhati S/o Mool Singh, via Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karamchari and Majdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5130/2023 Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhashnagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Kamal Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Chouhan, via Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karamchari and Majdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Manish Tak
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Falgun Buch with
                                Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani
                                Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

25/05/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since the subject matter and the order of Labour Court in all

these matters are common, therefore, the bunch of writ petitions

is being decided by this common judgment.

For brevity, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4524/2023

(Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara Vs. Gopal Lal) are taken into

consideration.

[2023/RJJD/017291] (3 of 6) [CW-4524/2023]

Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are

that the respondents were appointed in the petitioner department

on the post of Computer Operator in the year 2009. The

respondents after having worked in the department for more than

240 days were not granted Semi Permanent Status. In these

circumstances, an industrial dispute was raised by the

respondents and the appropriate Government made a Reference

to the Labour Court vide order dated 05.12.2014. The learned

Labour Court after issuance of notices and exchange of counters

and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the Reference

vide award dated 24.05.2019 holding that though the respondents

are not entitled for granting Semi Permanent Status, however,

they are entitled to get equal pay for equal work for the post of

Computer Operator. Aggrieved of the award dated 24.05.2019, the

present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner

department.

The solitary argument of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction

while answering the Reference made to it. He submits that since

the Reference was only with respect to the grant of Semi

Permanent Status to the respondents on completion of two years

of services by the respondents, therefore, Labour Court could not

have made any observation with respect to grant of equal pay for

equal work to the respondents. He, therefore, prays that the

direction for equal pay for equal work made by the Tribunal may

be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

submit that the Labour Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction

[2023/RJJD/017291] (4 of 6) [CW-4524/2023]

while passing the award dated 24.05.2019 as the Reference has

been answered in the most appropriate manner and the Labour

Court has rightly taken into consideration the period of service

rendered by the respondents in the petitioner department and

since the respondents are performing the same nature of work

which a regular employee is performing, therefore, the

respondents are entitled to get minimum of the pay of the pay

scale for the work which is being performed by them at par with

the regularly appointed employees of the petitioner department.

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that no

interference is warranted by this Court as the petitioner has also

in some of the cases given effect to the grant of minimum wages

to the respondents although the same has subsequently been

withdrawn. They further submit that the respondents have also

preferred the writ petitions before this Court in which they have

prayed for grant of minimum wages of the pay scale on which they

are performing the job with the petitioner department.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case including the

impugned order dated 24.05.2019.

The fact that the respondents are working in the petitioner

department since 2009 on the work of Computer Operator is

borne out from the record and the same is not disputed. While

working on the post of Computer Operator for all these years, an

industrial dispute was raised and the appropriate Government

made a Reference to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara on

05.12.2014 in the following terms:-

[2023/RJJD/017291] (5 of 6) [CW-4524/2023]

"क्या नियोजक सचिव, नगर विकास न्यास, भीलवाडा द्वारा श्री गोपाललाल पुत्र श्री दे वीदास कामड (जिसका विवाद महामंत्री राज० संयुक्त कर्मचारी एवं मजदू र महासंघ, महिला आश्रम पानी की टं की के नीचे भीलवाडा ने उठाया है ) को दो वर्ष की सेवा पूर्ण करने के उपरां त दिनां क 30.11.2011 से कम्प्यूटर ऑपरे टर के पद पर अर्द्ध स्थायी घोषित नहीं करना उचित एवं वैध है ? यदि नहीं, तो श्रमिक किस राहत को प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?"

Learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara while adjudicating the

Reference has come to the conclusion that the respondents are

not entitled to get the Semi Permanent Status, however, they are

entitled to get the minimum of the pay scale for the post of

Computer Operator. It is true that the observation made by the

learned Labour Court was not the subject matter of the Reference

made to it and the Labour Court exceeded in observing that the

petitioners are entitled for minimum of the pay scale in its award

dated 24.05.2019. However, it cannot be lost sight off that, it is an

incidental/intermixed subject which was adjudicated while

deciding the Reference made by the appropriate Government. In

any case, since the Industrial Tribunal has decided the Reference

in favour of the respondents to the extent that the respondents

are entitled for grant of minimum pay scale being incidental

considering the fact that the respondents are working in the

petitioner department since 2009 cannot be lost sight off.

Technically speaking the observations made were beyond the

scope of Reference, but this Court cannot lose sight off the fact

that the respondents, who are working in the petitioner

department since 2009 on the post of Computer Operator are

entitled to get the minimum of the pay scale of the post of

Computer Operator.

[2023/RJJD/017291] (6 of 6) [CW-4524/2023]

In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice

will be met if the writ petitions are disposed of by holding that

since the Reference has been answered in favour of the petitioner,

however, on an appropriate representation being made by the

respondents, the same shall be considered by the petitioner for

grant of minimum of the pay scale in light of the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra).

It is, therefore, ordered that on an appropriate

representation being made by the respondents and other similarly

situated persons to the petitioner within a period of one week

from today, the petitioner shall consider and decide the same in

light of judgments rendered by this Court as well as Hon'ble the

Supreme Court particularly in the case of State of Punjab & Ors.

Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 at the

earliest preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.

If the representation is decided against the respondents,

then the petitioner shall pass a speaking and reasoned order to

that effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also given an

undertaking that in the garb of disposal of these writ petitions, the

services of the respondents will not be dispensed with.

In view of the above, the present writ petitions stand

disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

31-37-Shahenshah/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)