General Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Organization v. Managing Director/chief Manager, Jaipur Agar, Rajasthan State

: Mr. Vinod Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoren HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 05/03/2025

1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

2. This appeal has been filed aggrieved by order dated

16.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the Management against the workman in the matter of challenge to the award of the Labour Court, has been allowed and the award has been set aside.

3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned Single Judge fell in error of facts and law both in upsetting the award on the ground of delay. It is further submitted that on the aspect as to whether the appellant was entitled to grant of selection grade, contrary to the material on record, finding has been recorded that the record of the appellant was tainted [2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-164/2024] whereas, after 2004, till second selection grade became due in 2013, there was no blemishness and the record was clean without any penalty or adverse remarks. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the grant of first selection grade was delayed and it was granted as late as in the year, 2004. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in view of subsequent events, the appellant does not press claim for grant of third selection grade.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Management would argue that the Labour Court exceeded jurisdiction in passing an award beyond the terms of reference. He would contend that the terms of reference did not include any issue with regard to claim of first selection grade from due date. According to him, the learned Single Judge rightly held that claim of selection grades was barred by delay and laches as the workman did not raise the dispute within a reasonable time, relying upon various judgments.

4.1. Replying to the second argument of the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Labour Court perversely recorded that no material was placed to substantiate that the service record of the appellant was not satisfactory. Referring to the material contained alongwith the records of the writ petition, learned counsel would submit that there were several penalties imposed on the appellant and, therefore, grant of selection grade which is pre-conditioned with satisfactory service record, could not be claimed as a matter of right. [2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-164/2024]

5. It is not disputed that the appellant was appointed in the year 1986. Therefore, first selection grade became due in the year 1995, but the same was granted in the year 2004. The appellant did not raise any dispute either in the year, 1995 or even in the year, 2004. Therefore, his claim insofar as grant of first selection grade in the year 1995 is concerned, was stale and to that extent, the order of the Labour Court is illegal, as rightly held by learned Single Judge.

5.1. However, as far as claim of second selection grade is concerned, the appellant was entitled to the same before completion of another nine years of service from the date of grant of first selection grade. Even assuming that the appellant could not claim grant of first selection grade prior to 2004, his second selection grade became due in the year, 2013. When it was not granted, immediately thereafter, the appellant raised dispute and the State Government made reference of dispute to the Labour Court. Therefore, as far as claim of second selection grade is concerned, the same cannot be said to be barred by delay and laches. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge, insofar as claim of second selection grade is concerned, proceed on wrong factual premise that the claim was barred by delay and laches. The appellant could not have claimed grant of first selection grade w.e.f. the due date i.e. in the year 1995 but atleast he was entitled to claim second selection grade from 2013 i.e. 9 years after the grant of first selection grade in the year 2004. Therefore, to that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and rejection of the claim of the appellant insofar as [2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-164/2024] second selection grade in the year 2013 is concerned, is held illegal.

6. Learned Single Judge rejected the appellant’s claim for selection grade on the ground of service record.

7. We have gone through the material available on record which shows that even there are certain penalties awarded to the appellant earlier, but after grant of first selection grade in the year 2004, no material could be placed by the respondent to satisfy the Labour Court, Writ Court or even this Court that his record from 2004 to 2013 was blemished. Therefore, to that extent, the order of the Labour Court is sustained and finding in that regard recorded by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is accordingly, held entitled to second selection grade w.e.f. 2013. As the appellant has given up the claim of third selection grade, award to that extent is also liable to be interfered with.

8. The award of the Labour Court is upheld only to the extent that the appellant is entitled to second selection grade w.e.f.

2013. The award of the Labour Court to the extent it grants first selection scale from due date after completion of nine years from 1995 and grant of third selection grade is set aside.

9. The order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it rejects the claim of grant of second selection grade from 2013 is set aside.

10. In the result, it is declared that appellant is entitled to second selection grade w.e.f. 2013 but not the first selection grade prior to 2004, nor the third selection grade. [2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-164/2024]

11. The appeal is accordingly, partly allowed in the manner and to the extent stated above. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/89