REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAM SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

G. VIRRAI PILLAI V. RAMAN AND RAMAN LTD. [REFERRED TO]
HIMMAT LAL HARI LALL MEHTA V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION V. REGISTRAR OF D.M. TRADE -MARKS,MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
K S RASHID AND SON VS. INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA DISCOUNT COMPANY LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANIES DISTRICT I CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KUMAR SARKAR JANKINATH BANERJEE SITARAM SHAW VS. EAGLE ROLLING MILLS LIMITED:KUMARDHUBI ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED:KUMARDHUBI FIRE CLAY AND SILICA WORKS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CHANDRASEKHAR BOSE VS. D J BAHADUR:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN PANDEY VS. USHA RANI RAJGARIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. PRAMOD BHARTIYA [REFERRED TO]
S R BOMMAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
U P JAL NIGAM VS. NARESHWAR SAHAI MATHUR [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SCOOTERS INDIA VS. VIJAI E V ELDRED [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH VS. KRISHAN BHANDARI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. JASMER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAVI BALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SURINDER KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAM CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
NAIN SINGH BHAKUNI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUCKNOW VS. U P FOREST CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA DEVI VS. JASPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TIN PLATE CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL U SHAH VS. G SUBRAMANIA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
GOPI LAL TELI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANR. VS. THE UNITED MOTORS (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims that he was initially appointed as a Class IV employee known as 'Jaldhari' in the Government Upper Primary School in Panchayat Samiti, Bagidora, district Banswara, with effect from 16 -7 -1993 and since then he has been continuously working as such. However, he is being treated as a part -time employee and is being paid the consolidated salary and not the salary in the minimum pay scale of the post of Class IV employee. Thus, the petition has been filed seeking direction for regularisation and for payment of the pay scale of a regular employee.

(2.) THE issue whether the petitioner is a part -time employee or is working whole day, is a question of fact which cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Thus, the main issue involved in the present case is whether the petition be entertained or petitioner be relegated to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) IN Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of D.M. Trade -marks, Mumbai 1998 (7) SCC 243, the Apex Court has observed as under:

Click here to view full judgment.

RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address