Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Dev Kishan & Anr on 30 January, 2015
Bench: Govind Mathur, Jaishree Thakur
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1758/2014
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Dev Kishan & Anr.
Date of Judgment :: 30.01.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh, Additional Advocate General, with Mr.
Dinesh Kumar Ojha, for the appellant
BY THE COURT :
To question correctness of the judgment dated 23.05.2014 passed by learned Single Bench, this appeal is preferred. The appeal is barred by limitation from 106 days. The office has also pointed out certain other defects. Ignoring the defects pointed out by the Registry, we have examined merits of the appeal.
By the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench refused to interfere with the award dated 25.04.2013 passed by learned Labour Court - cum - Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara.
In brief, facts of the case are that the appropriate government by its notification dated 02.03.2010 referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Court in the terms that [2] "Whether the employer Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Shahpura Division is justified in not awarding semi-permanent status on the post of Assistant to its workman Mr. Dev Kishan S/o Mr. Gopal Mali (dispute of whom has been raised by Vice President, Jaldaay Karmchari Sangh, Bhilwara) from 04.04.2008 ? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled ?"
The workman in his statement of claim stated that he was working with the Public Health Engineering Department from 04.04.2006 but semi-permanent status was not given to him, though he completed 2 years of service. It was asserted that as per Rule 3 (3) of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Land Development (Programme) Circle C.A.D. Chambal Department Kota (including its Divisions/sub- divisions), Water Works, Ayurvedic and Forest Department (excluding Departmental Operation Circle Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1994'), he was entitled to have semi-permanent status on 04.04.2008.
The employer contested the claim with assertion that the workman was employed through a placement agency, i.e. Reliance Security Agency, and therefore, he was not entitled for grant of semi-permanent status.
Learned Labour Court after examining the entire [3] evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that the Public Health Engineering Department, though employed the workman through Reliance Security Agency, but his services were utilized by the Department only. A definite finding was given that a relationship of master and servant was existing between the Public Health Engineering Department and the applicant workman. On basis of the finding aforesaid, a direction was given to the employer to confer semi-permanent status to the workman from the date he completed 2 years of service.
The employer being aggrieved by the award aforesaid, preferred a petition for writ, that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 23.05.2014. As per learned Single Bench, the award passed by the Labour Court is justified in view of the judgment of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10883/2013 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Prasad) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13469/2013 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Prasad).
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant employer is that in view of the fact that the respondent-workman was employed through a placement agency, the Labour Court wrongly arrived at the conclusion that a relationship of master and servant was existing.[4]
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. Suffice to mention that as per the Rajasthan amendment in the definition of "workman" given under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even a person employed by a contractor in relation to execution of his contract is a workman. In view of this definition, we are having no hesitation in stating that the respondent was workman with the Public Health Engineering Department, though employed through a placement agency. It is also not in dispute that he is working with the Public Health Engineering Department since 04.04.2006.
The other argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act of 1999'), no direction could have been given for awarding semi-permanent status to the respondent-workman.
In our opinion, this argument too is bereft of merit. The Act of 1999 is having application for employment through regular cadre of service in different departments of the Government of Rajasthan including local bodies. It has nothing to do with grant of semi-permanent or permanent status under the Rules of 1964.
Suffice to mention that under the Rules of 1964, a [5] workman on completion of 2 years of service becomes entitled to be considered for grant of semi-permanent status and for permanent status on completion of 10 years of service. In the instant matter, the direction given by the Labour Court is only for conferring such status on completion of 2 years of service. In our opinion, no wrong has been committed by the Labour Court and therefore, learned Single Bench rightly refused to interfere with the award impugned. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.
[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOV IND MATHUR], J. Pramod