Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshan Ali vs Sgnr. Zila Dugd. Utt. Sah. San. Ltd ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41890-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 17/2014
Roshan Ali S/o Shri Jamin Ali, aged 45 years, R/o Ward No. 10,
Gandhi Nagar, Balmiki Mandir, Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Ganganagar Zila Dugdh Uttapadak Sahakari Sang Ltd.,
Industrial Area, Hanumangarh.
2. The Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Gehlot.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
Reserved on : 17.09.2025
Pronounced on : 08.10.2025
Per Mr. Bipin Gupta J:
1. The present special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the
appellant against the judgment dated 22.11.2013 passed in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12417/2012 whereby the writ petition of the
present respondent employer was allowed and the award dated
06.06.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Sriganganagar in favour of the present appellant was set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein was
appointed as Fourth Class Employee with the respondent and his
services were terminated in December 1991.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that against the
said termination, the appellant had approached the State
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:08:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41890-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-17/2014]
Government which in turn referred the dispute for consideration
with regard to the question that whether the termination of the
services of the appellant in December 1991 was valid or not and if
it was not valid then what relief could be granted to the appellant.
The aforesaid reference is reproduced as under:-
"D;k Jfed jks"ku vyh iq= Jh tkfeu vyh] xka/khuxj guqekux<
ta- dh fu;kstd izcU/k lapkyd] ftyk nqX/k mRiknd lgdkjh la?k
fy- guqekux< taD"ku }kjk fnlEcj 91 ls lsok eqfDr mfpr ,oa oS/k
gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ "
4. The said reference was decided in favour of the appellant
vide judgment dated 30.11.1999 in the following terms:-
"vr% ;g vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ@fu;kstd izcU/k
lapkyd] ftyk nqX/k mRiknd lgdkjh la?k fyfeVsM guqekux<
taD"ku }kjk izkFkhZ@Jfed jks"ku vyh iq= Jh tkfeu vyh dks
fnlEcj 91 ls lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA vr% ;g
vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ] izkFkhZ dks rqjUr iwoZor lsok esa
iquZLFkkfir djsA izkFkhZ dh lsok fujUrj ekuh tk;sxhA
izkFkhZ vf/klwpuk dh fnukad 31 tqykbZ 1995 ls lsok esa
iquZLFkkfir fd;s tkus rd dh vof/k dk 50 izfr"kr iwoZHkwfr ds :i
esa vizkFkhZ@fu;kstd ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?ksf'kr fd;k tkrk
gSA vizkFkhZ dks ;g Hkh vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd og izkFkhZ dks iapkV
ds izdk"ku ls rhu ekg dh vof/k esa mDr iwoZHk`fr jkf"k vnk djsA
mDr vof/k esa jkf"k vnk ugha djus ij izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ls fu.kZ; dh
fnukad ls 12 izfr"kr okf'kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh gksxkA"
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was reinstated in service on 19.09.2001 and thereafter, he was
regularized on the post of daily worker on 25.10.2002 in the pay
scale of 2550-55-2660-60-3200.
6. The appellant thereafter filed another dispute before the
State Government which was referred to the Industrial Court-cum-
Labour Court, Sriganganagar for consideration on the following
question:-
''D;k izcU/k lapkyd Jh xaxkuxj nqX/k mRiknd lgdkjh la?k fy-
guqekux< }kjk izkFkhZ Jh jks"ku vyh iq= Jh tkfeu vyh ¼ftldk
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:08:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41890-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-17/2014]
fookn egkea=h] Hkkjrh; VªsM ;wfu;u dsUnz ¼lhVw½ ftyk desVh Jh
xaxkuxj }kjk mBk;k x;k gS½ dks izFke fu;qfDr frfFk 9-3-89 ls
fu;fer osru =a[kyk rFkk 9 o'kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus dh frfFk ls
p;fur osrueku ugha fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks
izkFkhZ fdl jkgr o jkf"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^
7. The Industrial Court-cum-Labour Court on the aforesaid
reference passed the following award dated 06.06.2012:-
"izLrqr fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ; bl izdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ
Jfed Jh jks"ku vyh iq= Jh tkfeu vyh dks vizkFkhZ izcU/k lapkyd]
Jh xaxkuxj ftyk nqX/k mRiknd lgdkjh la?k fy- guqekux< }kjk
izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 9-3-89 ls fu;fer osru _a[kyk rFkk 9 o'kZ dh
lsok iw.kZ djus dh frfFk ls p;fur osrueku ugha fn;k tkuk
mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSa A izkFkhZ mDr fnukad 9-3-89 ls Ms;jh odZj ds
in dh osru _a[kyk 2550&55&2660&3200 izkIr djus ,oa 9 o'kZ dh
lsok iw.kZ djus dh frfFk ls p;fur osrueku izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh ?kksf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dks mDr ykHk ds QyLo:i
izkIr osru o vU; ifjykHk dh jkf"k dk Hkqxrku iapkV ds izdk"ku ls
rhu ekg dh vof/k esa fd;k tk;sxkA vU;Fkk bu jkf"k;ksa ij fu.kZ; dh
fnukad ls olwyh rd 7-5 izfr"kr okf'kZd dh nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt Hkh
ns; gksxkA"
8. Being aggrieved by the award dated 06.06.2012, the
respondents herein preferred a writ petition bearing number as
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12417/2012 which was allowed by this
Court vide order dated 22.11.2013 whereby while interpreting the
word "fujUrj" as continuation in service and held that
continuation in service would only mean the continuing services
and not the regular service in regular cadre.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has
been filed by the appellant herein.
10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant that
vide initial award dated 30.11.1999, the appellant was reinstated
back in the services while treating his services to be in
continuation and was, therefore, made entitled to a regular pay in
the regular cadre since his termination of services from his first
appointment dated 09.03.1989 and, therefore, contended that the
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:08:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41890-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-17/2014]
learned Single Judge has committed illegality while allowing the
writ petition and setting aside the award dated 06.06.2012. The
learned counsel for appellant also contended that as per the Work
Charged Employees Service Rules, 1965 on completion of two
years of service, the employee is entitled to be declared as semi-
permanent and on application of rule also he was entitled to get
the benefit of permanent or semi-permanent. However, the said
fact has been ignored by the learned Single Judge.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that the initial claim of the appellant in the original
dispute was to the effect that his services has wrongly been
terminated in the year December 1991 and, therefore, he may be
reinstated. The learned Labour Court vide the award dated
30.11.1999 held that the termination of the appellant was illegal
and, therefore, ordered to reinstate him in service and to be
treated as in continuation in service. Further, he was found
entitled to 50% of the amount what he was receiving as earlier.
The learned Labour Court has not granted him any benefit of
regular pay scale. Moreover, continuation in service and regular
pay scale are two different reliefs. Learned counsel for the
respondents argued that by subsequent award dated 06.06.2012
by misinterpreting the word continuation in service, the Labour
Court has passed award directing the appellant to pay the regular
pay scale from 09.03.1989 and, therefore, due to the
misinterpretation in the award the same has been correctly set
aside.
12. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on
record.
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:08:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41890-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-17/2014]
13. The award dated 30.11.1999 was clear enough as in that
award there was no claim of the appellant of any regular pay scale
from the date of his initial appointment i.e 09.03.1989.
Considering the specific claim of the appellant, the learned Labour
Court vide its award dated 30.11.1999 found the termination of
the appellant in December 1991 to be illegal and directed that
appellant to be reinstated and further directed that the appellant
would be entitled for 50% of the wages as he was receiving. Thus
in clear terms, there was no order for entitlement of the appellant
to any regular pay scale.
14. However, the subsequent award which has been passed on
06.06.2012, the Labour Court by misinterpreting the continuity in
service on the basis of earlier award has granted regular pay scale
since 09.03.1989. This Court finds that there is a difference
between continuity of service and regular pay scale. The appellant
had an opportunity and could have claimed the regular pay scale
even at the time when he was terminated from the services but he
had claimed the termination to be illegal. Though the question
framed was that if his termination is found to be illegal what relief
he could be granted.
15. The Labour Court in its order dated 30.11.1999 found the
termination to be illegal and in the relief found him to be entitled
to 50% of the wages as he was receiving prior to the termination.
The Labour Court in its award dated 30.11.1999 has not granted
any benefit to the appellant for the regular pay scale. The
appellant did not prefer any writ against the award dated
30.11.1999 and thus, it attend finality and was implemented also.
After the implementation of award dated 30.11.1999, the
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:08:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41890-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-17/2014]
appellant was reinstated on 19.09.2001 and was also paid the
50% of the back wages. The appellant was thereafter regularized
in the regular pay scale on 25.10.2002 as a dairy worker.
16. After getting all the benefits under the award dated
30.11.1999, the appellant preferred another dispute which was
referred to the Labour Court on 04.06.2007. It is found by this
Court that the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court vide award
dated 06.06.2012 committed illegality in granting the benefit to
the appellant which was not granted even under the award dated
30.11.1999 when the first cause of action was available with the
appellant. Further the tribunal by misinterpreting the word
"continuation in service" have granted the regular pay scale to the
appellant. The learned Single Judge considering the said facts
have recorded that word "continuation in service" has been
wrongly interpreted as in regular services and, therefore, found
that the appellant was not entitled for regular pay scale since
09.03.1989 and thus set aside the award.
17. On the basis of the above observation, this Court finds that
no interference is called for in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in its judgment dated 22.11.2013 and, therefore, the
present special appeal (writ) stands dismissed as devoid of any
merits.
18. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
-Jatin/sumer/-
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:08:03 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
