BHAGWAN SAHAI Vs. UDYOG BHAWAN COMMON FACILITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition with the prayer that action of the respondents in not granitng him regular pay scale of the post of Class -IV w.e.f. 17/1/1990 and not regularising his services from that date, be declared arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and that the respondents be directed to grant him regular pay scale and regularisation with effect from 19/11/1990 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) RESPONDENT -Udyog Bhawan Common Facility Jaipur is an organization created by the public sector establishments, offices of which are housed in Udyog Bhawan : Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (R.I.I.C.O.), Rajasthan Financial Corporation (R.F.C.), Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (RAJ. S.I.C.O.), Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (R.S.M.D.C.) and Industry Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner claims that he was appointed with the respondents on the post of Messenger on 23/4/1987 and was thereafter illegally removed on 22/4/1988. An industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court Jaipur at his instance and the same was answered vide its award dated 20/7/1994 holding termination of the services of the petitioner as illegal and entitled him to reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of service. The respondents challenged the aforesaid award before this Court by filing S.B.C.W.P. No. 5296/94 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 13/3/2001 in which award to the extent of reinstatement and continuity with service was upheld but backwages were reduded to 50%. Aggrieved thereby, respondents filed D.B.S.A.W. No. 230/01 which was also dismissed with costs by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 10/11/2005. Still not satisfied, respondents filed Special Leave to Petition before Supreme Court which was also dismissed. Thereafter, respondents vide order dated 11/5/2006 reinstated the petitioner which was modified by another order dated 29/7/2006 to say that petitioner would have continunity in service for the intervening period.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Supreme Court in UPSEB v. Poonam Chandra Pandey and Ors. 2007(7) Supreme 374 and argued that Supreme Court in that case after considering the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi : (2006)IILLJ722SC , held that when similarly situated persons were regularised, petitioner could not be discriminated and the benefit of decision of the Electricity Board permitting regularisation of employees working from before 4/5/1990 would be available to the petitioner in that case. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgments of this Court in Babulal Saini v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Ors. S.B.C.W.P. No. 366/1990 decided on 19/11/1990, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Rampal Singh RLR 2006(1) 173, Sualal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2006(2) RDD 1156 (Raj.), Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2007(3) CDR 2361 (Raj.), State of Karnataka and Ors. v. C. Lalitha : (2006)IILLJ93SC and Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B.C.W.P. No. 4090/1993 decided on 15/3/2007.