JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHYAM LAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant intra -court appeal, the appellant/Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'JDA', for short), has assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 10th January, 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ application of the respondent/petitioner wherein termination of service of the respondent/petitioner has been quashed and set aside for violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947', for short). The learned Single Judge has allowed reinstatement and all consequential benefits notionally as extended to one Kamal Kaushik, who is identically situated and his case was adjudicated upon vide order dated 29th November, 1991.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are: that the respondent/petitioner was initially engaged by the JDA on the post of Electrical Supervisor on work -charged basis in December, 1983 and worked for 3 months. The respondent/petitioner was again engaged in January, 1985 and worked upto May 1985. Again, the engagement was made on 15th September, 1987 on a consolidated amount of Rs. 750/ - per month, which continued upto 24th August, 1988, when the termination was given effect to. One Kamal Kaushik, who too was engaged along with the respondent/petitioner, his services were also dispensed with by the appellant/JDA; approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 1810 of 1989. Vide judgment and order dated 29th November, 1991, the termination of service of Kamal Kaushik was held to be in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act of 1947 and therefore, a direction for reinstatement with consequential benefits was ordered. However, in regard to the claim of back wages and arrears, the matter was left to be determined before the forum under the Act of 1947. Intra -Court Appeal Number 168 of 1992, against the judgment and order dated 29th November, 1991; in case of Kamal Kaushik, was dismissed as infructuous on 13th July, 2001. Therefore, the respondent/petitioner prayed for same benefit and order as in the case of Kamal Kaushik. The prayer has been granted vide impugned judgment and order dated 10th January, 2006.

(3.) PER contra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.K. Mathur, assisted by Mr. Aditya Mathur, supporting the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge emphasized that the issue has already been raised, considered and decided in the case of Kamal Kaushik, as is evident from the order dated 29th November, 1991, which has been followed by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the case of the respondent/petitioner. Learned counsel further stressed that the Special Appeal preferred by the JDA against the judgment and order dated 29th November, 1991 in the case of Kamal Kaushik, was dismissed as infructuous by the Division Bench and therefore, there is no reason to take a view different from the one earlier adopted in the similar case of Kamal Kaushik. According to learned Senior Counsel, the appellant/JDA having accepted the verdict of this Court in case of Kamal Kaushik, is estopped to raise plea of exclusion of application of the provisions of the Act of 1947. Further, equals must be treated equally. Since the case of the respondent/petitioner is not different from that of Kamal Kaushik, the appellant/JDA cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.