Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Executive Engineer vs Mahaveer Prasad (2025:Rj-Jd:6703) on 4 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:6703]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1074/2025
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Division, Shahpura
----Petitioner
Versus
Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Jagannath, R/o Ganeshpura, Bhilwara,
District Bhilwara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, AAG assisted by
Ms. Mehali Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit with
Mr. Shashank Sharma
Mr Ikbal Khan
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
04/02/2025
1. The present writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India calls in question the order dated
05.02.2021, that has been passed by learned Labour Court,
Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the
application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') filed by the
respondent - workman has been allowed.
2. The pertinent facts involved in the present writ petition are
that the respondent - workman was appointed on urgent
temporary basis on 15.10.2004 to operate the pump, removing
the leakages in the pipelines and supply the water. On
16.08.2011, the petitioner-State retrenched him from services, for
which he initiated conciliation proceedings and when the efforts
failed he filed a claim under Section 10A of the Act of 1947 before
[2025:RJ-JD:6703] (2 of 4) [CW-1074/2025]
the Tribunal (being Industrial Dispute Case No.15/2012) and by
way of award dated 06.06.2016, the Tribunal has held the action
of retrenching the respondent - workman to be illegal and
contrary to sections 25F, 254 and 25H of the Act of 1947 and
directed the State to reinstate the workman. A direction was also
issued to pay 25% of the backwages from the date of termination
i.e. 16.08.2011 to the date of reinstatement.
3. The said award was challenged by the petitioner before this
Court by way of filing writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14582/2016) and then by way of an appeal before the Division
Bench (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 815/2019) and both of them
were dismissed by learned Single Judge and Division Bench vide
order dated 18.12.2017 and 20.08.2019 respectively. Thereafter,
SLP filed by the petitioner too got dismissed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court on 18.01.2021.
4. The respondent - workman was reinstated by the State in
the month of November, 2017, but compensation (25% of the
backwages/monthly salary) was however not paid, for which the
respondent - workman moved an application under section 33C(2)
of the Act of 1947 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the
same vide order dated 05.02.2021 and directed the State to pay a
sum of Rs.1,00,269/- within a period of three months from the
date of the award with a further stipulation that in the event of
failure to pay the same, such amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum.
5. Mr. Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the petitioner argued that the respondent - workman has not
[2025:RJ-JD:6703] (3 of 4) [CW-1074/2025]
placed on record any evidence to establish the claim of backwages
for the period from 16.08.2011 to November, 2017. Learned
Additional Advocate General relied upon an order dated
16.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Executive Engineer Vs. Rameshwar Lal & Anr. : D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No. 475/2021.
6. Heard.
7. The present writ petition which has been filed with a delay of
about four years is not only belated but also frivolous.
8. The judgment cited by Mr. Rathore, learned Additional
Advocate General has no application in the present factual matrix,
inasmuch as the Division Bench judgment dated 16.02.2022 deals
with conferment of semi-permanent status to the workman while
the case in hands is in relation to payment for the period during
which the respondent - workman was illegally retrenched to the
date of his reinstatement and that too in terms of the award that
was passed by the Tribunal on 06.06.2016 and which has attained
finality.
9. The argument of learned counsel for the State that the
respondent - workman has failed to adduce evidence to
substantiate his claim is misconceived.
10. In the face of the finding and the direction given by the
Tribunal in his judgment and award dated 06.06.2016, the State
was required to reinstate the workman forthwith. That apart, a
stipulation was further made that the workman shall be entitled
for 25% of the total wages for the period from 16.08.2011 to the
date of reinstatement.
[2025:RJ-JD:6703] (4 of 4) [CW-1074/2025]
11. The judgment and award dated 06.06.2016 passed by the
Tribunal was unequivocal and in the teeth of such stipulation made
in the award, the State cannot refuse the workman to pay 25% of
the wages for the period interregnum.
12. This Court hardly finds any substance in the present writ
petition, for which, it is hereby dismissed.
13. The stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
8-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
