Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhurilal Manaria vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:22021) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22021] (1 of 4) [CW-3259/2005]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3259/2005
Bhurilal Manaria S/o Shri Kalu Shanker Manaria, aged 38 years,
Resident of Rishabhdev, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Manager, Shri Rishabhevji
Maharaj Temple, Devsthan Department, Rishabhdev, District
Udaipur.
2. The Labour & Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh for
Mr. Rakesh Arora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achraj Singh for Mr. R.S.Saluja.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/05/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment and award dated 24.05.2003 passed by
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur.
Briefly noted facts of the present case are that the petitioner
was appointed as 'Pujari' under the respondent department in the
year 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner filed numerous
representations for granting him regular pay scale of 'Pujari',
however, the same was not granted by the respondents on the
ground that there is no sanctioned post of 'Pujari' at the place
where the petitioner is working. In these circumstances, the
petitioner made a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act to
[2025:RJ-JD:22021] (2 of 4) [CW-3259/2005]
the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur in the year
2000. However, the same was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Udaipur vide its judgment and award dated
24.05.2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been working under the respondents on the post of 'Pujari'
since 1986-87 on a meagre wages of Rs.7/- per day. Learned
counsel submits that despite there being enough work performed
by the petitioner as Pujari, the post of Pujari has not been
created. He submits that the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Udaipur has committed error while deciding his claim vide
judgment and award dated 24.05.2003. He, therefore, prays that
the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the
respondents may be directed to grant the petitioner salary in the
regular pay scale after creating a post of Pujari.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Udaipur has correctly adjudicated the reference and passed the
judgment and award dated 24.05.2003. He submits that there is
no post of Pujari at the place where the petitioner is working,
therefore, there is no question of granting regular pay scale to the
petitioner. However, learned counsel fairly submits that the
petitioner is working on the post of Pujari under the respondents
for last more than three decades, therefore, he is entitled for
grant of minimum wages of a skilled labour fixed by the State
Government.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case including the judgment
[2025:RJ-JD:22021] (3 of 4) [CW-3259/2005]
dated 24.05.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Udaipur.
The admitted facts in the present writ petition reveal that the
petitioner was appointed as Pujari in a temple under the
respondents in the year 1986. Initially, he was paid Rs.7/- per
day. However, the amount of minimum wages was increased from
time to time and the petitioner is recently being paid an amount of
Rs.73/- per day. It is a fact that the petitioner is uninterruptedly
working on the post of Pujari under the respondents since 1986
and there is no sanctioned post of Pujari under the respondents.
This court feels that payment of Rs.73/- per day is a too meagre
sum and the same is not in conformity with the daily wages rates
fixed by the State Government for a skilled labour.
In the considered opinion of this court, interest of justice will
be met, if the judgment and award dated 24.05.2003 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur is modified and
directions are issued to the respondents to pay minimum wages to
the petitioner as per the rates fixed by the State Government for
skilled labour.
In view of discussion made above, the present writ petition
merits acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The
respondents are directed to pay the petitioner minimum wages
w.e.f. 27.12.2000 as per the rates and wages made applicable by
the State Government for a skilled labour. The calculation of
minimum wages shall be done by the respondents with effect from
the year 2000 and as per the revised rates thereafter. The entire
[2025:RJ-JD:22021] (4 of 4) [CW-3259/2005]
arrears of wages shall be paid by the respondents within a period
of eight weeks from today.
Needless to say that the amount already paid by the
respondents shall be deducted in the final calculation of arrears to
be paid to the petitioner.
The judgment and award dated 24.05.2003 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur is modified in the
above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
7-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
