Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Doongar And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 17 July, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 40/2018
1. Doongar S/o Chamna,
2. Shankar Lal S/o Golabh
3. Kalji S/o Chamna,
4. Ratan S/o Deepa,
5. Laxmi D/o Deva,
6. Kamla D/o Heerji,
7. Madiya S/o Jivna,
8. Laxman S/o Naniya,
9. Kalu S/o Mangaliya,
10. Nathu S/o Omkar,
11. Dhulji S/o Mehji,
12. Virji S/o Mavji,
13. Vaseng S/o Harji,
14. Kamla D/o Deva,
15. Champalal S/o Rama,
16. Lalu S/o Bhaguda,
17. Geba S/o Lakhji,
18. Valmandi W/o Mavji,
19. Mansingh S/o Kalu,
20. Revla S/o Badiya,
21. Hurteng S/o Kalji,
22. Haliya S/o Kalji,
23. Punam Chand S/o Kaliya,
24. Poja S/o Devuda,
25. Prabhu S/o Nathu,
26. Hardu S/o Kamji,
27. Shankar S/o Khema,
28. Nagji S/o Vasiya,
29. Moga S/o Nagji,
30. Ratan W/o Bheriya,
31. Ravji S/o Khatiya,
32. Pooja D/o Kamji
33. Bhura S/o Kamji,
34. Hurteng S/o Roopji,
35. Lala S/o Bhema,
36. Shanti D/o Rakma,
37. Gawari D/o Dhanji,
38. Ratna S/o Narayan,
(2 of 5) [CW-40/2018]
39. Kamji S/o Phuliya,
40. Kamji S/o Hathriya
41. Phulji S/o Havji,
42. Kanku D/o Mangliya,
43. Kamlu S/o Mangla
44. Ramchand S/o Kereng,
45. Magan S/o Kereng,
46. Magiya S/o Kalu,
47. Hakaru S/o Barji,
48. Ramesh S/o Lala,
49. Kanji S/o Phool Ji,
50. Kali D/o Ditiya,
51. Rama S/o Kodar,
52. Kamudi D/o Nanka,
53. Rama D/o Bheriya,
54. Onkar S/o Dhanji,
55. Badiya S/o Gautiya,
56. Sura D/o Dhanji,
57. Kalji S/o Rupa,
58. Vaju S/o Deva,
59. Kamla S/o Jiwa,
60. Kanti S/o Hamira,
61. Devji S/o Hamira,
62. Veliya S/o Vesiya,
63. Kalu S/o Kanji,
64. Hira S/o Valseng,
65. Mangla S/o Makhsi,
66. Laxman S/o Kaliya,
67. Manheng S/o Nathuda,
68. Laxmi D/o Bijiya,
69. Prabhu S/o Megji,
70. Lasiya S/o Jagji
71. Ragji S/o Chuniya
C/o Assistant Engineer, Sub Division-IV, Dam Division-
1st, Mahi Project, Banswara Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Jaipur.
(3 of 5) [CW-40/2018]
3. The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Udaipur.
4. The Executive Engineer and TA to Superintending
Engineer, Construction Circle, Mahi Project, Banswara.
5. The Executive Engineer, Dam Division-1 Mahi Project,
Banswara, Rajasthan.
6. The Assistant Engineer, Sub Division-4/1, Dam Division-1,
Mahi Project, Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hukam Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 17/07/2018 By the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for granting them benefit of back wages along with interest in terms of order dated 5th of April, 2000, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1921/1999, affirmed by Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.540/2000(DRJ).
The facts, in brief, are that on behalf of petitioners and 173 other workmen, industrial dispute was raised by Union - Mahi Shramik Sangh, Banswara, to question their illegal termination from services by respondent employer. Being members of the Union, cause of all the petitioners and other workmen was espoused by the said Union. The dispute ultimately culminated into reference vide Notification dated 24th of May 1995 and the same was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). Learned Tribunal adjudicated the reference by its judgment and award (4 of 5) [CW-40/2018] dated 22nd of March 1999 and ordered their reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of termination of services to the date of passing of the award. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest @12% per annum to the petitioners and other workmen on back wages.
Feeling aggrieved by the award, State preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was decided by learned Single Judge modifying the award. The learned Single Judge, while upholding the award to the extent of reinstatement of workmen modified the award of back wages and confined 50% back wages from the date of reference till date of the award. Against that order of learned Single Judge, petitioners-workmen as well as State both preferred Special Appeals before the Division Bench which were decided on 19th of July 2000. The Division Bench, in its judgment, passed following order:
"We have perused the award and the order of the learned Single Judge and also the pleadings. We are satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge modifying the award as indicated above. There cannot be any serious objections on the part of the workmen also in regard to such modification. No new point has been raised by both the appellants in the respective appeals. In our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. We, therefore, confirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge modifying the award to the extent that the 106 workmen shall be entitled for 50% of the backwages from the date of reference till the date of award together with the interest. It is seen from the award that the Tribunal has awarded 12% interest. The same rate of interest shall be paid from the date of reference."
The grievance of the petitioners appears to be with respect to grant of 50% back wages with interest. After hearing learned (5 of 5) [CW-40/2018] counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the matter for the reason that equally efficacious remedy is available to them under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under Section 33- C(2), a workman is entitled from employer any money or benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. The proceedings under Section 33-C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings, and therefore, Labour Court can determine the amount payable to a workman, if his claim is based on existing rights. Undeniably, at the threshold, back wages were awarded to the petitioners by the learned Tribunal and subsequently the same was altered and modified by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore right of the petitioners to claim relief while invoking Section 33-C(2) is not fettered.
In view of above, I feel disinclined to interfere in the matter and consequently the writ petition fails and same is hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that the rejection of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners-workmen from availing alternate remedy in accordance with law.
(P.K. LOHRA),J Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)