MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AJMER Vs. NAGAR PARISHAD KARAMCHARI SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal u/sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16th October, 1969 whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the Municipal Council, Aimer, questioning the arbitration award made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Ajmer, u/s. 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended by the Rajasthan Act.

(2.) THE Municipal Council, Ajmer, by its order dated 23rd June, 1967, retired certain persons with different designations because they had attained the age of 55 years. Five Daroghas, two Masons, three Chowdhrics and two Drivers raised a dispute questioning the validity of their retirement. By virtue of an agreement dated the 19th June, 1968 the matter was referred under sec. 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). THE Municipal Council, Ajmer, at the relevant time was being run by an Administrator appointed under sec. 293-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Municipalities Act' ). THE agreement was between the Nagar Parishad Karamchari Sangh representing the workmen and the Administrator of the Municipal Council, Ajmer, but it was signed by one M. S. Bansal, Accountant, Municipal Council, Ajmer. THE Arbitrator proceeded to consider the rival contentions complaining that the attitude adopted by the Municipal Council was uncooperative - although the Administrator had filed an answer to the claim - and came to the conclusion that all the aforesaid persons belonged to Class IV service and could not be retired on completing the age of 55 years in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Class IV Service Rules, 1964. Dissatisfied with the award the Municipal Council filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged the award in respect of only 2 masons and 3 choudhries, inter alia, on the ground that the agreement to refer the matter to arbitration was not executed by a proper authority as required under sec. 80 of the Municipalities Act; that in point of fact as early as 1931 the then Municipal Committee of Ajmer had described the designation of choudhry as a superior servant and they could not be called Class IV servants; that it was erroneous on the part of the Arbitrator to have equated masons to black-smiths, painters, carpenters, etc. and to conclude that they were Class IV servants. It was also urged that masons and beldars were the two distinct kinds of workmen while the former required skill and the latter were merely called to perform physical work involving no adroitness. THE learned single Judge declined to interfere on the ground that the attitude of the petitioner before the Arbitrator was non-cooperative and also there was no substance in the accusations of mala fides on the part of the Arbitrator. He declined to exercise his extraordinary jurisdiction for considering the question of the legality of the agreement to refer the matter to Arbitrator. Dissatisfied the Municipal Council, Ajmer has come up in appeal.