High Court · 1996

Order

19.03.08 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr.S.S.Ladrecha for the petitioner/s. Mr.S.Purohit for the respondent/s. By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated

22.06.04 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner in Industrial Dispute Case No.01/2001. The appropriate Government, under its Notification dated

15.03.2000 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner in the terms as to whether termination of the workman Tarachand s/o Chhela Ram Java w.e.f. 04th of August 1999 by the Senior Hydro Geologist , Survey and Research, Ground Water Department , Bikaner is appropriate and valid , if not then for what relief the workman is entitled ?. As per the averments contained in the award , the respondent workman was in employment of petitioner employer as a part time casual labour w.e.f. 18th June 1996. He was discontinued from service on 11th of August 1999. An industrial dispute raised was referred for its adjudication and the Labour Court by the award impugned held that the workman was in continuous employment of the employer and his termination from service is retrenchment as defined under section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The employer effected the -2- retrenchment without following the mandatory condition precedents to do so, as prescribed under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act

1947. The Labour Court directed the employer to reinstate the workman in service with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of back wages. The award aforesaid was notified by the Government of

Rajasthan as per Notification No.F (I) (3) Shram/High Court/00 dated

31.01.05. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of the award is that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was discharging duties on part time basis. As per provisions of Sec.2 (s) of the Act of 1947, workman means any person employed in any industry to do manual work for hire and reward. It no where excludes part time employees from the preview of the term “workman”. The petitioner was admittedly doing manual work with the respondents and, therefore, certainly he was a workman. I do not find any error in the award impugned that would -3- warrant interference by this Court in the inherent powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The petition fails and, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. S.B.CIVIL Writ Petition No.4317/2006 DATE OF ORDER : 19.03.08 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr.Harish Purohit for the petitioner/s. Mr.B.L.Tiwari for the respondent/s. The petitioner submitted an application in prescribed proforma to be considered for appointment as Constable in Rajasthan Police. In the application form a negative reply was given by the petitioner in clause (17) in response to questions regarding registration of criminal case or submission of charge sheet in a criminal case. After completion of selection process on an enquiry it was found that as a matter of fact the petitioner faced a criminal trial for the offence punishable under sections 323 and 341 IPC and was acquitted from the charges concerned. The application form of the petitioner for consideration for appointment as constable was rejected by the respondents alleging concealment of material facts. By this petition for writ, while assailing validity of the decision of the respondent cancelling candidature of the petitioner, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in clause (17) of the application form the query was relating to pendency of a criminal case and that was given in negative as on the date the application was submitted , the petitioner was not facing any criminal trial. Per contra the stand of the respondent is that the query asked is quite clear and the petitioner should have mentioned details regarding the criminal case registered and challaned against him. Having considered the arguments advanced and the record, I do not find any substance in this petition for writ. From a bare reading of the queries made in clause (17) of the application form it is apparent that the petitioner was required to give details of the case / cases registered against him. The petitioner by a positive action put a mark indicating that no criminal case was registered against him and he was not at all challaned for any criminal case. The positive action of marking 'no ' and also mentioning that no case was registered against him clearly indicates that the petitioner was intending to conceal material fact. Hence, I do not find any illegality in rejection of the petitioner's candidature by the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Kalyan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. S.B.CIVIL Writ Petition No.3476/2007 DATE OF ORDER : 19.03.08 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. G.S.Rathore for the petitioner/s. Mr.V.K.Mathur for the respondent/s. **** The disability pension was awarded to the petitioner w.e.f.27th November 2008 for a term of three years. The disability pension aforesaid was discontinued by the respondents w.e.f. 20th September, 1990 as the petitioner did not choose to appear before the Resurvey Medical Board. The disability pension was restored on 19th of November, 2003 in pursuance to the recommendations made by the Medical Board on 18th of November, 2003. By this petition for writ the petitioner is claiming arrears of the disability pension accruing to him because of non payment of disability pension for the term commencing from the date of discontinuation to the date of restoration i.e. 19th of November, 2003. The stand of the respondents while contesting the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner despite calling, failed to appear before the Resurvey Medical Board. Thus, there was no question for increasing disability pension. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any call by the respondents to appear before the Medical Board. However, he failed to -2- substantiate the contention by any evidence. The petitioner was knowing it well that the respondents have discontinued disability pension , therefore, the proper course before him was to make efforts to know the reasons from the respondents to do so. It is not open for the petitioner now to say that he failed to receive any call to appear before the Medical Broad and, therefore, he is entitled for arrears of the pension. The recommendation of Resurvey Medical Board is the condition precedent for allowing disability pension and in that view of the matter the petitioner ought to have appeared before the Resurvey Medical Board for releasing the same. The period for which the petitioner did not chose to appear before the Medical Board, he cannot claim any disability pension. In view of whatever said above , the petition fails and is, therefore dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR),J.