STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SMT. CHANDNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is barred by limitation from 157 days. An application as per provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to have condonation of delay.

(2.) Before coming to the application, we consider it appropriate to mention certain important facts giving rise to the instant appeal. The respondent-workman came to be employed as Cook on part-time basis in a hostel run by the Department of Social Welfare. Though, she was working for complete day, the employer paid her a consolidated salary of Rs.600.00 per month. She through a registered trade union raised an industrial dispute for grant of regular pay-scale pertaining to the post of Cook and also to regularise her service in regular Class-IV cadre. The appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award dated 30.9.2003 held that the workman was not working on part-time basis but for complete regular day. It was also noticed that the workman was cooking food for 25 girl students in morning as well as in evening hours. On the basis of the findings arrived, the Labour Court directed the employer to consider her candidature for regularisation in service.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the award dated 30.9.2003, the State of Rajasthan preferred a petition for writ (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1424/2004), that came to be dismissed on 16.12.2014. The appeal giving challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench also came to be dismissed on 29.3.2006. The State of Rajasthan then preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Honourable Supreme Court, but that too was dismissed. Despite the factual background noticed above as per the petitioner no compliance of award was made, therefore, she preferred a contempt petition before this Court, that came to be dismissed on 29.7.2008 keeping the workman at liberty to avail appropriate remedy for compliance of the award dated 30.9.2003. After dismissal of the contempt petition, the petitioner preferred an application under Sec. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). The Appropriate Government dismissed the application by relying upon the statement made on behalf for the employer that the candidature of the workman was considered for regularisation in service but she was not found suitable. To challenge the same and also being aggrieved by her non regularisation in service, she preferred a petition for writ, that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned. The learned Single Bench set aside the order dated 9.9.2011 passed by the appropriate Government rejecting the application under Sec. 29 of the Act of 1947 and also held the workman entitled for regularisation in service. To challenge the same, this appeal is preferred.