Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Bhaira Ram Meghwal on 10 December, 2021
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4702/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Social Welfare
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaisalmer
(Raj.)
3. Hostel Superintendent, Government Scheduled Tribes
Hostel, Social Welfare Department, Ramdevra, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Bhaira Ram Meghwal S/o Long Ram, Through Bhoor Singh
Rathore, Vinod Purohit And Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Trade Union
Office, Railway Fatak 207-C, Basni Iind Phase, Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 10/12/2021 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, on an application filed by the respondent under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act'), direction has been given to make payment of a sum of Rs.3,74,772/-.
The respondent had raised labour dispute, which was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, which resulted in passing of the award dated 20.07.2016, wherein, it was held that respondent was entitled for (Downloaded on 13/12/2021 at 08:51:09 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-4702/2021] reinstatement back in service and was not entitled to any back wages.
The said award has been challenged before this Court by filing SBCWP No.2193/2017, wherein, notices were ordered to be issued, however, no interim order was granted.
The respondent filed application under Section 33C (2) seeking payment of wages for the period from the date of award as the respondent, though was entitled for being reinstated, was not reinstated by the petitioners.
The application was contested primarily on the ground that against the award passed, writ petition was pending before this Court and before the decision on the said writ petition, the award cannot be executed.
The Labour Court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion, based on the calculations made by Assistant Account Officer, who was appointed as Commissioner under Section 33C (3) of the Act, that the respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs.3,74,772/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the Labour Court was not justified in passing the award impugned for payment of the sum as indicated, inasmuch as, the writ petition filed by the State is pending and that the calculation made is incorrect.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award impugned I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Insofar as pendency of the writ petition filed against the award is concerned, admittedly no interim order has been granted (Downloaded on 13/12/2021 at 08:51:10 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-4702/2021] by the Court and as such, on that count it cannot be said that the Labour Court could not have passed the order impugned.
So far as the submission made about the calculation is concerned, admittedly, the calculation was made by the Assistant Accounts Officer appointed by the Labour Court, regarding which neither any challenge was laid before the Labour Court, nor in the present writ petition, any ground has been raised questioning the calculation. In view thereof, the ground sought to be raised regarding the calculation also apparently has no substance.
In view of above discussion, no case for interference in the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the Labour Court is made out.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 3-pradeep/-
(Downloaded on 13/12/2021 at 08:51:10 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)