PARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To challenge the award dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in industrial dispute No. 6/2004, this petition this petition for writ is preferred. By the award aforesaid, learned labour Court negativated the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 6.2.2004 in the terms, "whether the non-applicants (1)Assistant Engineer, Gangnagar Link Sub Division I, Sri Gangangar and (2) Executive Engineer, Link Channel Division, Sri Gangangar are right in not conferring semi permanent and permanent status to workman Ishar Ram s/o Shri Jesaram represented by President, Bhakra Gangnahar, Rashtriya Mazdoor Union, Sri Ganganagar on completion of 2 and 10 years of service on 1.12.85 and 1.12.93 respectively? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled?"

(2.) As per the averments contained in the award impugned, the workman Ishar Ram was employed as Beldar with Assistant Engineer, Gangnahar, Link Sub Division I on 1.12.83 and continued as such for quite a long period. As per Rule 3 of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1964"), Work Charged employees (including the regular technical staff of Water Works Department) are entitled to be conferred with permanent status on completion of 10 years of service and semi permanent status on completion of 2 years of service, but no such status was conferred to the workman concerned. Being aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute, that was referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in the terms mentioned above. The labour Court after considering whatever material available on record, reached at the conclusion that on the date of appointment i..e. 1.12.83, the workman was beyond the maximum age limit prescribed for employment and as such his appointment was illegal, therefore, he was not at all entitled to be conferred with semi permanent and permanent status. The award given by the labour Court on 30.6.04 acquired finality on its publication as per Section 17of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the appropriate government on 31.1.2005. Workman Ishar Ram after passing of the award by the Labour Court on 30.6.2004 died on 30.8.2004 i.e. prior to publication of the award and as such validity of the same is challenged by workman's wife- the present petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of Rule 3 simply prescribes that employees in continuous service for 2 years or more, except those covered by sub-rule (1) shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work charged employees, provided their record of service, in opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory and also that employees who have been in service for 10 years or more shall be eligible for status of permanent work charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. The Rule concerned nowhere prescribes that such an employee should have been appointed within the age limit prescribed under the Rules or that if the initial appointment is not as per Rules, then the semi permanent status or permanent status, as the case may, shall not be award.