1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.28/2008 Sohan Lal. vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.28/2008 Sohan Lal. vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur and others. Date : 14.9.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Vijay Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr.LK Purohit, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner raised industrial dispute which was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Jodhpur whereupon labour case no.18/04 was registered. The disputed referred to the Labour Court was whether the employee was appointed from 25.6.1997 and not conforming status of permanent upon him was illegal ? The contention of the petitioner is that since 1997 i.e. from 25.6.97, he is working as Safai Karamchari in the office of respondents and was engaged to clean even residential colonies. He was appointed against a clear vacancy. Initially, he 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.28/2008 Sohan Lal. vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur & ors. was paid Rs.600/- per month and from 6.8.98, he was paid Rs.800/- and his last salary paid was on completion of 31.3.99. The respondents' contention was that the petitioner was appointed as part time employee only and, therefore, he could not have been given status of semi permanent or part time under the Work Charge Employees Rules, 1964. The Labour Court vide impugned award dated 22.11.2007 accepted the plea of the respondent employer that the petitioner was part time employee and at the same place, held him to be employee engaged on contract basis which was not the case of even the respondents. The matter came up for consideration of this Court and on 4.9.2009, this Court after hearing the parties, when took note of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner was casual employee and thus, is not entitled to grant of semi permanent status as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, then the respondents were directed to show under what head, payment of salary was made to the petitioner and particularly as per the provisions of General Finance and Accounts Rules, 1948. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.28/2008 Sohan Lal. vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur & ors. that as per the Rules of 1948, a part time employee was entitled to wages of Rs.200/- and since the petitioner was engaged in three wings, therefore, he was initially paid Rs.200/- per month by each wing and that was not the consolidated salary of Rs.600/-. So far as subsequent payment of Rs.800/- per month to the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as the reasons given by the Labour Court in the impugned award and the evidence also. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the service on 25.6.97 and he is in service yet. Initially, he was paid Rs.600/- and then from 5.8.98, the respondents themselves started paying him Rs.800/- per month and according to learned counsel for the respondents, each wing's liability was Rs.240/- per month and, therefore, for three wings, it comes to Rs.720/- and as per the respondents, Rs.80/- was welfare fund payment. That made the amount to Rs.800/-. The facts referred above clearly reveal that it was one appointment as consolidated payment of 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.28/2008 Sohan Lal. vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur & ors. Rs.800/- per month with one welfare amount was paid to the petitioner. Be it as it may be, the Labour Court proceeded on wrong premise that the petitioner was a part time employee and was appointed on contract basis and he was not a work charge employee. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds, hence, allowed, the award dated 22.11.97 is set aside and quashed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to be declared as semi permanent on completion of two years of service from 25.6.97 and permanent from the date of completion of 10 years of service and is also entitled to all consequential benefits. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya