Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Executive Engineer vs Sunil (2025:Rj-Jd:11516) on 28 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:11516]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18730/2023
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Block- Shahpura, District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
Sunil S/o Ramswaroop Parashar, Through Mahamantri, Union Of
Water Supply Workers, Bhilwara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mehali Mehta for Mr. Sajjan Singh
Rathore, AAG
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
28/02/2025
1. The present writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India calls in question the order dated
25.05.2022, 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 08.03.2008 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 10(2-A) of the Act of 1947
[2025:RJ-JD:11516] (2 of 4) [CW-18730/2023]
before the Tribunal (being Industrial Dispute Case No.14/2012)
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, 25G 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.14637/2016) and then by way of an appeal before the Division
Bench (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 722/2019) and both of them
were dismissed by learned Single Judge and Division Bench vide
order dated 12.12.2017 and 18.09.2019 respectively. Thereafter,
SLP filed by the petitioner too got dismissed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court on 09.02.2021.
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 25.05.2022 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. Mehali Mehta, associate to Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore,
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:11516] (3 of 4) [CW-18730/2023]
argued that the respondent - workman has not placed on record
any evidence to establish the claim of backwages for the period
from 16.08.2011 to November, 2017. She 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 one year is not only belated but also frivolous.
8. The judgment cited by Ms. Mehali Mehta, learned counsel for
the petitioner 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 of backwages 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,
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 its 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:11516] (4 of 4) [CW-18730/2023]
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
2-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
