1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3826/2010 RRVPNL & Ors Vs Nand Lal Saini& Anr. Date of Order: 21.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the award dated 30.3.2009 whereby the learned labour court, Bhilwara in labour case no.31/2007 held that though the respondent no.1 was initially not appointed on the post of Driver, but after recommendation of the Committee constituted by the petitioner dated 28.10.1997, the respondent no.1 was posted on the post of Driver and, therefore, the respondent no.1-workman was entitled to wages as provided for the Driver from 28th Oct., 1997 and in case, the respondent no.1 has been paid any allowance under order dated 28th Oct., 1997 then that amount be adjusted agaisnt the pay of the respondent no.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 30.3.2009 referred above and it has been submitted that the respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Helper and he was given promotion also, however, so far as the order dated 28th Oct., 1997, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.4 it has been admitted by the petitioner that the said order was passed by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner itself constituted the 2 committed to recommend the names of the eligible candidates, the workmen to be appointed on the post of Driver, however, on conditions referred in the order dated 28th Oct., 1997, but it is admitted case that order dated 28th Oct., 1997 was acted upon and the respondent no.1 was given the posting on the post of Driver in consequence of the order dated 28th Oct., 1997. It is also true that there is a condition that the appointment was to continue upto 31st March, 1998 in view of the condition no.1 in order dated 28th Oct., 1997, but facts reveal that the respondent continued on the said post and yet he is continuing to discharge the work of the driver as per the finding of the labour court. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent was given posting on the post of driver on the recommendation of the committee constituted by the petitioner and therefore, he was rightly held to be entitled to the relief as granted by the labour court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the award impugned. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA],J. cpgoyal/-