Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Jaishree Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.45/2015
DATE OF ORDER: 09.04.2015
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Dr.P.S.Bhati, A.A.G., assisted by Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the State respondents.
Issue notice to the respondents of the application for condonation of delay as well as the Special Appeal, returnable within four weeks.
List the matter again on 19.5.2015.
It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that respondent Gumana Ram was serving as a daily wage Cook (Langri) in the police department on a consolidated pay of Rs.600/- in the year 1995 which was increased to Rs.800/- in 1996. He raised a dispute before the State Government on which the matter was referred on 3.10.2000 to the Labour Court for deciding as to whether he is entitled to regularization, regular pay scale and other benefits. The Labour Court vide its award dated 22.10.2003 found that the failure of the respondents to regularize the services of the workman and in not giving him regular pay scale, is improper and illegal. A direction is issued to regularize him from the date he had filed the SBCWP No.2250/1997.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition against the award giving rise to the Special Appeal. It is 2 submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the rules applicable to the police department do not provide for regularization nor any Scheme was framed and that the claim of regularization in the police department could not be adjudicated by the Labour Court.
He has further submitted that the question has been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal, AIR 2011 SC 1193 in the matter of part time Cooks and Chowkidars of the Hostels aided by the State Government and in which it was held that even a Scheme for regularization contrary to law laid down in Uma Devi's case is not acceptable. The award of the Labour Court was clearly without jurisdiction, as it failed to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC p.1.
The observations made in para 11 of the judgment in Daya Lal's case (supra) are quoted below:
"11. The part-time cooks and chowkidars were employed on temporary basis in the Government hostels in the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. They approached the High court in the year 1999 (except Madan Lal Yogi who approached in the year 1997). The services of some of them had been terminated within one or two years from the date of temporary appointment. Though the State had taken a decision to terminate all those who were appointed on consolidated wage basis, the other Respondents 3 continued because of the interim orders by courts. Service for a period of one or two years or continuation for some more years by virtue of final orders under challenge, or interim orders, will not entitle them to any kind of relief either with reference to regularization nor for payment of salary on par with regular employees of the Department."
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daya Lal (supra), which covers the case of the respondent.
Until further orders, the effect & operation of the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2014 and execution of the award of the Labour Court dt.22.10.2003 shall remain stayed. (JAISHREE THAKUR), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI), C.J. RANKAWAT JK, PS