The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to selection scales based on service duration, ruling that the civil court had jurisdiction despite the industrial dispute context.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.

1. The present civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan City, (for short ‘the appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No. 81/2017, whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan City (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 224/2013, whereby the trial court while partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’), held the plaintiff entitled to get first selection scale from 18.12.1995 and second selection scale from 18.12.2004. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get salary on notional basis from the date of his termination i.e. 22.01.1993 to 11.04.2011 and thereafter he was held entitled to get actual salary.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was appointed with the defendants-Corporation as a Conductor on daily wages basis vide order No.1244 dated 25.05.1985. Thereafter, vide order No.4122 dated 26.12.1985, he was appointed on one year’s probation period and granted the regular pay scale along-with other allowances. Later on, his services were terminated. Subsequently, vide Order No.5144 dated 18.12.1986, the plaintiff was appointed afresh on one year probation period and was again granted regular pay scale and other allowances. Thereafter, vide order No.727 dated 12.03.1987, his services were terminated.

3. Against the said termination order dated 12.03.1987, the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jaipur City which was decreed in his favour on 16.02.1990 and he was directed to be continued in service without any interference with all consequential benefits from the date of termination. In compliance of the said order, the plaintiff was re-instated in service in Udaipur Depot vide order No.252 dated 31.03.1990. Thereafter, vide order No.1166 dated 22.01.1993, the plaintiff’s services were again terminated. For approval of said termination order, an application was filed by the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, which was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 03.02.2009. The defendants-Corporation challenged the said order by filing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13972/2009 in which a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 18.02.2011. As per the compromise, the plaintiff- workman shall relinquish the back wages and other monetary benefits and accordingly the Corporation would take the plainitff back in service within a month from the date of compromise and the plaintiff’s services shall be continued and the salary and allowances would be given to him from the date of his reinstatement. On the basis of said compromise, the plaintiff was taken back in service vide order No. 177 dated 11.04.2011. After joining the duty by the plaintiff, the minimum pay scale was given to him and his pay fixation was not done. So, the plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court stating that as per the State Government vide Finance Department’s order dated 25.01.1992, he is entitled to get benefit of first and second selection scales on completion of 9 and 18 years of his service from 18.12.1995 and18.12.2004 respectively.

4. Defendants in their written statement mentioned that initially, the plaintiff was appointed as a daily wage Conductor vide order No.1244 dated 25.05.1985. Lateron, vide order No.4122 dated 26.12.1985 he was appointed on one year’s probation period. Subsequently, his services were terminated but vide Order No.5144 dated 18.12.1986, he was appointed on one year’s probation period. Again his services were terminated vide order No.727 dated