Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
J.R.Chopra, Y.R.Meena, JJ.
Ram Parsad and Etc, etc - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. Nos 911 to 913 and 908. 907 of 1987.
Decided On : 13-05-1992
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 2(OO)(BB) - VALIDITY - RETRENCHMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - WORKMEN - INDUSTRY - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - ARTICLE 14, 21, 39(D) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Five writ petitions were filed by petitioners who were appointed as L.D.Cs. and Peons on daily wages basis in the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department. Their services were terminated with effect from October 6, 1986. They contended that their termination was against the provisions of Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). They also claimed equal pay for equal work.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the Government of Rajasthan is an Industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act. The Court also held that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act are not arbitrary or unreasonable and are not violative of Articles 14, 21, and 39(d) of the Constitution. However, the Court found that the petitioners had tendered their resignations from service and that their past services would be forfeited and could not be counted for the purpose of Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act. The Court directed the respondents to give the petitioners the minimum of the pay scale of L.D.Cs. along with D.A. and Additional D.A. permissible under the Rules for the period work was taken from them by deducting the payments that had already been made to them.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the Government of Rajasthan is an Industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act are arbitrary or unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 39(d) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the petitioners' termination was in violation of Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the Government of Rajasthan is an Industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, relying on its earlier decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Arun Kumar and Shiva Nand v. State of Raj. 2. The Court held that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act are not arbitrary or unreasonable and are not violative of Articles 14, 21, and 39(d) of the Constitution, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R.T.C. 3. The Court found that the petitioners had tendered their resignations from service and that their past services would be forfeited and could not be counted for the purpose of Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act. 4. The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen, Williamson Magor & Co. v. Williamson M.& Co.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions in part and directed the respondents to give the petitioners the minimum of the pay scale of L.D.Cs. along with D.A. and Additional D.A. permissible under the Rules for the period work was taken from them by deducting the payments that had already been made to them. The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act are arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Articles 14, 21, and 39(d) of the Constitution. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate Tribunal to raise an Industrial Dispute before it as this matter involves disputed questions of fact which have been raised in these writ petitions, and they cannot be gone into by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(1) Radheshyam's case: (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 907/87).
It has been contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as L.D.C. w.e.f. December 1, 1985, on daily wages basis Rs. 15/- per day and he was allowed to continue till May 4, 1986. Thereafter, he was again appointed as L.D.C. with effect from May 5, 1986 for a period of three months on daily wages basis Rs. 15/-per day and he was allowed to continue up to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, his services were terminated. Again, he was appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages basis Rs. 15/- per day with effect from February 2, 1987 to February 28, 1987 through Employment Exchange vide order Annexure-2 dated January 30, 1987. He has, therefore, contended that he was continuously remained in service with effect from December 1, 1985 to October 6, 1986 without any break.
(2) Vimlesh Sukhwal's case : (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 908/87)
The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as L.D.C. with effect from July 20, 1985 vide Order Annexure-1 dated July 29, 1985. No record has been produced to show that he was allowed to join on July 20, 1985. Thereafter, vide order Annexure-2 dated October 5, 1985, he was again appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages basis Rs. 15/- per day. It is alleged that no order of termination was made prior to this order. However, vide order Annexure 3 dated October 15, 1985, his services were brought to an end from the afternoon of October 15, 1985, but it is alleged that he was very much on work even after October 15, 1985. By order Annexure-4 dated May 14, 1986, he was again appointed as L.D.C. for a period of three months on daily wages basis with effect from May 5, 1986. It is alleged that after the expiry of three months his services were not terminated and he was allowed to continue till October 5, 1986. He was again appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages basis Rs. 15/- per day with effect from February 2, 1987 to February 28, 1987 vide order Annexure-5 dated January 30, 1987. Thus, he has contended that he has continuously remained in service with effect from July 20, 1985 to October 5, 1986.
(3) Heeralal's case: (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 913/1987)
The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Peon vide order Annexure-1 dated August 3, 1984 on daily wages basis Rs. 9/-per day and his services were brought to an end with effect from the afternoon of May 25, 1985 vide order Annexure-2, By order Annexure-3 dated May 27, 1985, he was again appointed on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 9/- per day and his services were brought to an end with effect from October 3, 1985 vide order Annexure-4 dated October 1, 1985. However, vide order Annexure-5 dated October 1, 1985 he was appointed as peon with effect from October 5, 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with effect from March 13, 1986. He has submitted that this order is not available with him and whenever he comes to lay his hands on it, it will be produced. While this appointment was there, another order dated May 14, 1986 was made appointing him as a L.D.C with effect from May 4, 1986 for a period of three months on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. He has contended that the work has been taken from him and he has been paid wages right up to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, he was selected and appointed as L.D.C. w.e.f. February 2, 1987 through Employment Exchange vide order Annex.-7 dated January 30, 1987 and he continued up to February 28, 1987.
(4) Rampal's case (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 912 of 1987)
It has been contended that the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages basis Rs. 15/- per day vide order Anenxure-1 dated April 25, 1985 and his services were brought to an end vide order Annexure-3 dated August 1, 198
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
