S.B.C.W.P. No.680/2011
Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Anr.
Order dt: 02/11/2011
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.680/2011
Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 02nd November 2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. Aneesh Ahmed, for the petitioners.
---
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen.
2. The Industrial Tribunal by the impugned award dated
04.05.2004 has rejected the claim of the workmen-petitioners on the
ground that workmen had failed to prove before the Tribunal that they
were appointed against the vacancies of “Hand Pump Drivers” for
maintenance of such hand pumps and since they had not served for
the period more than two years, and thus they were not entitled to
any relief in the industrial dispute raised before the Tribunal upon
reference by the State Government. Therefore, their termination
could not be said to be illegal and in violation of provisions of
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act
of 1947’) since they were neither appointed against the vacancies for
the said post nor they had served for period more than two years as
hand pump drivers, therefore, claim petition filed by the workmen was
rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Aneesh Ahmed,
S.B.C.W.P. No.680/2011
Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara & Anr.
Order dt: 02/11/2011
2/2
urged that since the nature of the work of maintenance of the hand
pumps is continuous one and the respondents did not deliberately
allow the workmen to complete the period of more than two years,
therefore, the learned industrial tribunal has erred in rejecting claim
petition of the workmen.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the
petitioners/workmen at length and upon perusal of the detailed
award, running into 19 pages, this Court is satisfied that the learned
Tribunal has discussed the entire relevant evidence in correct
perspective and has arrived at findings of fact that workmen before
the Tribunal had not served for a period more than two years
continuously as defined in Section 25-(b) of the Act of 1947, nor they
were appointed against the clear vacancies of such posts and,
therefore, their monthly casual employment, did not confer any right
of regularization upon them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1
has clearly deprecated such back-door entry and has held that there
is no right of regularization of such casual employees. Respectfully
following the aforesaid judgment, this Court does not find force and
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order
as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the opposite party and
learned industrial Tribunal forthwith.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/- 43