SUNIL AND CO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged in this petition the order at Annex. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and prayed that the same may be quashed.

(2.) RELYING upon the two unreported Judgments of two different learned Single Judges of this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order be quashed as the work in a factory of the petitioner was carried out by the casual labourers and it was not a work in connection with establishment. First case was decided by P.P. Naolekar, J. on 8.11.94, Rishabh Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3235/83. From the photo stat copy of the order it appears that none remained present for the respondents in that case and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner the petition was allowed. That judgment was followed by Shri V.G. Palshikar, J. on 29.8.95 where learned Counsel Shri R.K. Soni appeared for the respondents and orders were set aside relying upon these Judgment. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders be quashed as the point in question is directly covered in favour of the petitioner. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in this case vehemently submitted that the law is well settled long back against the petitioner and there was not one but three reported judgments of this Court relying upon the Supreme Court judgment and none of them were cited before Justice Naolekar as none remained present at the time of hearing of that petition. It was also submitted that the reported judgments were cited before Justice V.G. Palshikar by learned Counsel Shri Soni appearing for the respondents in that petition, but the same were not referred to in the judgment by the learned Judge and straight away relying upon Justice Naolekar's judgment that petition was allowed by the learned Judge. It is not open for this Court to express any opinion about it. However, I find lot of substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents that three different Judges of this Court have held that casual labours are employees and Act is applicable. It was urged that there is conflicting view expressed by different Judges of this Court and, therefore, this Court should refer the matter to the larger Bench for resolving the question involved in this matter. In ordinary circumstances that would have been the only course available to me. In my opinion it was the duty of the learned Counsel who appeared before Justice Naolekar to point out the reported decisions of this Court particularly when no one was appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THEREFORE , I am not inclined to refer the matter to the larger Bench as the law laid down earlier, based on the decision of Supreme Court and other High Courts, required to be followed and referring the matter to the Larger Bench would be nothing but waste of money and valuable time of two Judges of this Court.