Judgment

06/02/2019 (Per: Hon’ble Bardhar, J)

Since the controversy involved in both the appeals is identical, hence same are being decided by a common judgment.

Both the appeals have been filed by the appellant.

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (‘the appellant- JVVNL’ for short) against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge.

Brief facts of the case are that references in connection with workmen Govindram and Nawal Kishore were made by the State after dispute was raised by the respondent-Union and the same was referred on 30.8.2010 and sent it to the Industrial Dispute Tribunal, Jaipur on the following point:

^^D;k izkFkhZ Jfed Jh xksfoUnjke iq= Jh ukjk;.kyky ¼ftldk fookn lfpo] fo|qr Jfed deZpkjh ,drk ;wfu;u ¼lhVw½ t;iqj ftyk t;iqj }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS½ dks mlds fu;kstu ¼1½ t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM] fo/kku lHkk ds ikl] fo|qr Hkou t;iqj tfj;s ,e-Mh-@psj;eSu ¼2½ lgk;d vfHk;Urk] t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy0] ,y-Vh-ch- f}rh;] pkSew gkml] t;iqj }kjk dkjisUVj ds in dk inuke o osru J`a[kyk ugha fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| gS\ ;fn ugha] rks izkFkhZ fdl jkgr o jkf’k dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\**

^^D;k izkFkhZ Jfed Jh uoy fd’kksj iq= Jh dslj yky ¼ftldk fookn lfpo] fo|qr Jfed deZpkjh ,drk ;wfu;u ¼lhVw½ t;iqj ftyk t;iqj }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS½ dks mlds fu;kstu ¼1½ t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM] fo/kku lHkk ds ikl] fo|qr Hkou t;iqj tfj;s ,e-Mh-@psj;eSu ¼2½ lgk;d vfHk;Urk] t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy0] ,y-Vh-,e- f}rh;] xka/kh uxj] t;iqj }kjk dkjisUVj ds in dk inuke o osru J`a[kyk ugha fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| gS\ ;fn ugha] rks izkFkhZ fdl jkgr o jkf’k dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\*

In the statement of claim filed by Union on the ground that the workman Govind Ram was the member of the Union, who was initially appointed on 8.2.1979 as daily wager on the post of Carpenter and since then he has been working on the post of Carpenter. Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation had raised a demand before the Rajasthan Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. with respect to the work-charge/ daily wager employee/ muster roll workmen with regard to pay fixation/ regularization and thereafter a compromise was arrived at between both the parties and was referred to Arbitration. The award with regard to the workman, Govind Ram was passed on 15.6.1979 and according to the award the workman was to regularized/absorbed as per the work performed by him of the specific post. In the statement of claim it was submitted that initially Govind Ram was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.370-560 for the post of Carpenter but he was not regularized on the post of Carpenter. Therefore he filed writ petition which was decided on 31.1.1997 and it was held that workman Govind Ram was to be paid pay scale along-with other benefits as per the post of Carpenter. The order dated 31.1.1997 was challenged by the (Rajasthan State Electricity Board) before the Division Bench by filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1209/1997 which was dismissed by Division Bench on 29.5.2002. Subsequent to the order passed by Hon’ble High Court on 29.5.2002, an SLP was preferred by RSEB which was decided on 10.11.2009, in which it was held that the Court should not fix pay scale as fixation of pay scales is a complicated exercise which has financial implications and cascading effect. It is for the concerned authorities to fix the pay scales. The workman Govind Ram along-with another workman Naval Kishore were granted permission to raise the Industrial Dispute. It was prayed in the statement of claim that the workman Govind Ram be allowed and eligible to be paid salary to the post of Carpenter from the date of his of his initial appointment along-with amended pay scale, salary and allowances along-with arrears of pay and salary and the consequential benefits.

The appellants filed written statement of denial mentioning therein that as per Power Sector Reformat Act pf 1999, section 13(1) provides that in the present case Rajasthan State Electricity Board was not made the party and since the necessary party