Jitendra Singh Rathore vs Urban Improvement Trust-State ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8787 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 820/2023

Jitendra Singh Rathore S/o Govind Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Through Mahamantri, Rajasthan Sanyukt Karmchari And Mazdoor Mahasangh, Mahila Ashram, Near Water Tank, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

Urban Improvement Trust-State, Bhilwara, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Road, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment / Order

20/10/2023

This Special Appeal Writ is filed by the appellant being

aggrieved with the order dated 25.5.2023 passed by the learned

Single Judge in SBCWP No.4340/2023 and other connected writ

petitions.

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ

petitions filed by the respondent-UIT, has granted liberty to the

appellant and other similarly situated persons to move

representation before the respondent-UIT with a prayer for grant

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-820/2023]

of minimum pay scale in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh &

Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 within fixed time.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and other

similarly situated persons have raised an industrial dispute with a

prayer for issuing directions to the respondent-UIT to grant them

semi permanent status. The appellant and other similarly situated

persons have claimed before the Labour Court that they are

working on the post of computer operator since 2009 and,

therefore, they are entitled for semi permanent status. While

answering the reference, the Labour Court, though denied benefit

of semi permanent status to the appellant and other similarly

situated persons, but ordered that the respondent-UIT shall pay

salary to the appellant and other similarly situated persons by

following the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The respondent-UIT has filed writ petitions challenging the

award passed by the Labour Court only on a limited point that the

Labour Court cannot direct the UIT to pay wages to the appellant

and other similarly situated persons by following the principle of

equal pay for equal work as the said direction is beyond the scope

of the reference.

The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions

while holding that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction

by issuing directions to the respondent-UIT to pay wages to the

appellant and other similarly situated persons by following the

principle of equal pay for equal work, however, granted liberty to

the appellant and other similarly situated persons to move

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-820/2023]

representation before the UIT with a further direction to the UIT to

consider and decide the said representation while taking into

consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Jagjit Singh's case (supra).

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that against

the impugned award, the appellant has already preferred SBCWP

No.12645/2019, which is pending consideration. It is submitted

that by way of said writ petition, the appellant has challenged the

legality of the award while contending that the Labour Court has

wrongly denied benefit of semi permanent status to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant is apprehending that with the

disposal of the writ petitions filed by the UIT, the merits of the writ

petition filed by the appellant would be adversely affected.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after

going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single

Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has no-

where made any observation that the decision of the Labour Court

of not granting semi permanent status to the appellant by the UIT

is in accordance with law.

The learned Single Judge has simply dealt with the

arguments of the respondent-UIT that the Labour Court has

exceeded its jurisdiction by giving directions to pay wages to the

appellant and other similarly situated persons by following

principle of equal pay for equal work.

We are of the opinion that the merits of the writ petition filed

by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court of not

[2023:RJ-JD:36310-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-820/2023]

granting semi permanent status to the appellant and other

similarly situated persons shall be decided on its own merits.

Needless to say, while deciding the writ petition filed by the

appellant challenging the finding of the Labour Court of not

granting semi permanent status shall be considered by the Court

without being influenced by the observations made by the learned

Single Judge vide order impugned.

With these observations, this Special Appeal Writ is disposed

of.

                                   (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J                                         (VIJAY BISHNOI),J


                                    82-msrathore/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)