1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
: O R D E R :
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1650/2005
Dy. Director, C.D.P.O., Pali & Anr.
Vs.
Shri Hema Ram
Date of Order :: 05.09.2008
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr.C.S. Ojha, Dy. Govt. Counsel.
Mr.Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By way of filing present writ petition,
the department is challenging validity of award
dated 14th November, 2002 whereby following
reference was answered in favour of respondent-
workman:-
"द न पक क पत तनत गण क बहस सन ,
पत वल क अवल कन ककय ।
प र द र यह कह गय ह" कक उसन ववपक क
यह % च’क द र क क य( ककय परन उस च’क द र क
अनरप व न नह+% कदय ज रह ह” जबकक वह सम न
क म सम न व न क तसद न क अनस र च र( शण
2
कम(च र+ क व न प न क अत क र+ ह” । अपन म %ग
पत क स र बक य र त0 क वववरण भ प र न
स%लगन ककय ह” ।
ववपक क यह करन रह ह” कक प र क 22/-
रपय र ज पर लग य गय र और यह सव प र न
वबन ककस आपव5 क क ह” ऐस स8रत म9 सम न
क म सम न व न क तसद न ल ग: नह+% ह ।
प र न अपन 0पर -पत म9 यह 8व क र ककय
ह” कक उसक तनयव; पत कदन क कहस ब स हई र
और ज आद0 प0 हए ह> उसम9 भ 28.1.94 क
आद0 म9 22/- रपय पत कदन क कहस ब स भग न क
स8रत क उललख ह”, ऐस ह+ उललख 20.7.91 क
तनयव; आद0 म9 भ ह” । परन यह स8रत भ सह+ ह”
कक प र न च’क द र क क म ककय ह” और ऐस
स8रत म9 जब प र स च र( शण क क म तलय
गय ह” तन:सनदह ह+ उस उसक अनरप व न कदय
ज न उतच ह” । इस समबन म9 प र क ओर स
आई.आर. 1986 एस.स .पज 584 सरनDतस%ह बन म
स .प .डबल.ड+. , ए.आई.आर. 1988 एस.स . पज 519
दहल मयतनतसपल कम(च र+ एक य:तनयन बन म
प .एल. तस%ह र एस.ब . तसववल ररट प ट+0न न%.
4617/91 म9 म नन य र ज8र न उचच नय य लय क
तनण(य प0 हआ ह” सजसम9 कह गय ह” कक जह % द
वयव; सम न क य( कर रह ह> उनह9 सम न व न
कदय ज न च कहय।
प8 पकरण म9 भ यह स8रत सह+ ह” कक
प र स च’क द र क क म तलय ज रह ह” । प र स
अ%0क तलक क य( तलय गय ह ऐस क ई स8रत प0
नह+% हई ह” । ज क य ल
( य आद0 प0 हए ह” उसम9 भ
अ%0क तलक तनयव; क क ई उललख नह+% ह” बसलक र त
च’क द र क पद पर तनयव; क गई ह” । ऐस स8रत म9
तन: सनदह ह+ प र च’क द र क व न शKख % ल क
अनरप व न व भ5 प न क अत क र+ ह” ।
अत तनण(य
अ : यह अत तनण(य ककय ज ह" कक श
हम र म पत श भ%वरल ल स”न द र अपन तनय जकगण
(1) कत य उप तनद0क, मकहल एव% ब ल ववक स
ववभ ग, प ल (2) ब ल ववक स पररय जन अत क र+,
मकहल एव% ब ल ववक स ववभ ग र हट सजल प ल क
प8 यह म %ग कक उस सम न क य( क तलय सम न
व न क तसद न क आ र पर कदन %क 21.5.91 स
30.10.95 क च’क द र क पद पर ककय क य( ह
व न भ5 क भग न कर य ज व, उतच एव% व”द ह” ।
3
अ : आदत0 ककय ज ह” कक अप र तनय जन प र
क तनयव; त तर 21.5.91 स 30.10.95 क च’क द र
क पद पर ककय गय क य( क तलए च’क द र क व न
शKख
% ल क अनरप व न व भ5 प र क अद कर।
इस अत तनण(य क पक 0न र( र जय-0 सन क
पवN ककय ज व।”
Learned counsel for the State vehemently
argued that respondent-workman is not entitled for
equal pay for equal work on the post of Chowkidar
as ordered by the Judge, Labour Court because with
open eyes he has accepted appointment on daily
rate basis and later on after his termination from
service, he has raised an industrial dispute with
regard to grant of regular pay scale for the post
of Chowkidar. It is further argued that no case is
made out in favour of respondent-workman on the
basis of evidence produced by him before the
Judge, Labour Court. However, learned Judge has
committed an error of law while granting regular
pay scale to the respondent-workman for the post
of Chowkidar knowingly well that respondent-
workman himself accepted appointment at the rate
of Rs.22/- per day when he was engaged by the
petitioner-department.
Learned counsel for the State has invited
attention of this Court towards the recent
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in
4
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi ,
reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 in which the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that without any post no
person is entitled for regular wages, so also, if
any appointment is made without following the
procedure of law then also he is not entitled to
be regularized on the post. Although in para 53 of
the said judgment, it is observed that matter of
regularization after completion of ten years of
service is to be considered by the Central
Government, State Government and instrumentality
of State and for that purpose they are required to
take proper steps for the employees who have been
appointed irregularly.
In this view of the matter, I am of the
opinion that the award passed by the Judge, Labour
Court in Industrial Dispute No.38/99 dated 14th
November, 2002 granting regular pay scale to
respondent-workman on the post of Chowkidar for
the service tenure rendered by him w.e.f. 21st May,
1991 to 20th October, 1995 is contrary to evidence
and illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the award passed by the Judge, Labour
Court in Industrial Dispute No.38/99 dated 14th
November, 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside.
However, the respondent-workman is held entitled
5
for the wages as per prevailing rates paid by the
department to similarly employed employee. No
order as to costs.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J.
A.K. Chouhan/-