Advocates:
['M C TAYLOR R M BAIRWA', '', 'AJEET KUMAR BHANDARI', 'AJEET BHANDARI']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 265/2017

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14543/2011

1.

Rashtriya Copper Majdoor Congress Intuc Khetri Nagar

Through Its Joint General Secretary, Kishan L, Quarter

No. E 203, Sector, 1 B, Khetri Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu

2.

Pratap Singh S/o Late Shri Khuba Ram, D-128 Kolihan

Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Hindustan Cooper Ltd. Through Its Cmd, Tamar Bhawan,

1-Ashutosh Choudhary Marg, Avenue Kolkata.

2.

Executive Director, Khetri Copper Complex, Khetri Nagar,

Distt. Jhunjhunu

3.

The Government Of India, Through Secretary Mines,

Shahtri Bhawan, New Delhi.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. M.C. Taylor

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Senior Counsel,

with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava and Mr.

Atul Bhardwaj

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDRA SINGH SIRADHANA

Order

10/07/2019

Learned counsel for the review/writ petitioner, while seeking

review of the judgment dated 25^th April/May, 2017, has raised

three points for consideration of this Court, which warrant review

of the judgment.

Firstly, the date of the judgment under the review indicated

as “25/04/2017”, has been wrongly recorded, may be on account

of typography error; for the matter was listed for dictation of

(2 of 6)

[WRW-265/2017]

judgment on “18^th May, 2017”, and therefore, the correct date is,

25^th May, 2017.

Secondly, the judgment has been made relying upon the

principles enunciated by the Apex Court of the land with reference

to principle “equal pay for equal work” whereas claim of the

petitioner(s) in the writ application was for “equal allowances”.

Therefore, the opinions relied upon while making the judgment

under the review have not been correctly applied. It is further

pointed out that though the opinions referred to and relied upon

by the learned counsel for the writ/review petitioner have been

taken note of; yet, the appreciation has not been correctly made

resulting into miscarriage of justice.

Thirdly, the Dearness Allowance (D.A.), in case of the

petitioner(s) was accepted with effect from 1^st November, 2010,

whereas in the case of “executives”, allowances have been made

admissible with effect from 1^st January, 2010. Thus, arbitrary

approach in determining two differential dates is apparent on the

face of record. Moreover, D.A. is to be calculated on the basis of

dearness and cannot have been any relation with post held by an

individual. Therefore, “workmen” (petitioners) and “Executives”

are entitled to equal allowances. It is further added that

Performance Related Pay (PRP), has no relation to performance of

individual

rather

it

is

the

performance

of

the

company/establishment.

Learned counsel further added that ‘settlement’, if arrived at,

as a consequence of proceedings before the ‘Conciliation Officer’

or in the judicial process, shall be binding. However, a settlement

before the ‘Labour Commissioner’ cannot be binding. Moreover,

the petitioners were not party to the “settlement”, and therefore,

(3 of 6)

[WRW-265/2017]

the same cannot be a basis for declining the claim of the

petitioner(s). Furtherance, the issue of PRP has not been referred

to in the settlement. Referring to the opinion of the Apex Court in

the case of Nar Singh Versus Union of India & Ors.: 2000 (3)

SCC 588; it is emphasized that there cannot be estopple against

the fundamental rights.

Per contra; Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel,

resisting the prayer of the review petitioners for only review

contended that while clerical errors are permissible for correction

in the backdrop of text of Section 152 CPC with reference to the

arithmetical errors and similar as detailed out under Section 152;

there can be re-appreciation of the factual matrix, which has

already been raised, considered and adjudication upon.

Learned counsel would further co