1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.265/2000 Arun Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 28 th April, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.P.GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the appellant. Mr. Mukul Singhvi, G.A., for the respondents. .... While answering a reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 4.11.1995, the Labour Court, Jodhpur by an order dated 17.4.1998 declared the appellant workman entitled for reinstatement in service with 50% of back wages being his retrenchment w.e.f. 31.10.1992, was found in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). While doing so, learned Labour Court held that employment of the workman in District Sub Division-II; District Sub Division-III; City Sub Division-IV; City Sub Division V and City Sub Division-III of Public Works Department was under one employer i.e. the Executive Engineer, Circle-I, Public 2 Works Department, Jodhpur and as such the term of employment in different units of Public Works Department should be clubbed to determine continues service in a calendar year. By judgment dated 10.3.2000, learned Single Judge of this Court accepted a petition for writ preferred by the employer giving challenge to the award dated 17.4.1998 and set aside the same on the count that different Sub Divisions of Public Works Department constitutes different employer, thus, clubbing of the term of service rendered by the workman in different sub divisions was wrong. In the instant appeal challenge is given to the judgment dated 10.3.2000 on the count that in various units of Public Works Department a functional integrity exists and thus employer of the workman was Executive Engineer, Circle-I, Public Works Department, as held by the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that during the period from 1.11.1990 to 31.12.1992 the workman rendered services in different units of Public Works Department. Nothing is available on record on basis of that it can be said that appointment of the workman was initially made in one unit and subsequently he was transferred to different units under instructions of competent officers of the Public Works Department. On 3 the contrary, as per statements of Shri Sandeep Mathur, Assistant Engineer, City Sub Division-I, the workman was employed by him on muster roll basis on 1.6.1992 and prior to that he was not knowing him. The assumption as such is that the workman was employed afresh every time with different units of Public Works Department in its various units. As per Section 2(g) of the Act of 1947, employer in relation to any industry carried on by or under authority of any department of Central Government or State Government is the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the Head of the Department. Under Rule 2 (g) of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 the authority prescribed with reference to clause(g) of Section 2 of the Act of 1947 in relation to an industry carried on by a department of the State Government is the officer-in-charge of the industrial establishment. The officer-in-charge of a Sub Division in Public Works Department is Assistant Engineer and not the Executive Engineer. As such, employer of a workman working in a Sub Division of Public Works Department is Assistant Engineer. The appellant workman being employed in different sub divisions of Public Works Department was under employment of the Assistant Engineer of the Sub Division concerned and not of the Executive Engineer. 4 In view of whatever said above, the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 10.3.2000 rightly held the award dated 17.4.1998 erroneous. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N.P.GUPTA ),J. kkm/ps.