1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5522/2007. THE PALI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. KESA RAM AND ANOTHER DATE OF ORDER : 22.07.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra for the petitioner. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated 31.07.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur answering a reference made to it by the appropriate government under the notification dated 30.11.2000 in the terms that “whether the non-grant of Privilege Leave (Earned Leave), extension of the date for grant of increment, by the employer Managing Director, the Pali Central Co-operative Bank, Pali to its workman Kesa Ram Chaudhary, Clerk-cum-Cashier is just and valid? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled?” Learned labour court after considering the entire material available on record, held that in pursuant to judgment given by the Rajasthan High Court in SBCWP No.3698/90 decided on 18.12.1990, affirming the award in labour dispute 2 No.50/95 decided on 15.07.1990, the date of initial appointment of the petitioner is 18.12.1990, therefore, the employer erred while deferring the date for grant of annual grade increments by 3462 days. Learned labour court also held that earned leaves of the workman are required to be computed by taking into consideration the services rendered by the workman from the date of his initial appointment. While assailing validity of the award aforesaid, the principal contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the labour court erred while granting 315 Earned Leaves to the workman in view of the fact that as per the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, no earned leave beyond the period of 300 days could have been granted. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also examined the award impugned. The labour court by the award impugned, allowed 315 days as earned leave to the respondent workman. Learned labour court has not given any direction for making encashment of 315 days of earned leave. The rule is that the earned leaves cannot be encashed in excess to the period prescribed under the Statute. 3 The labour court may have determined 315 earned leaves to the workman, but the petitioner is required to encash only 300 earned leaves out of the aforesaid 315 earned leaves. The determination of earned leaves in excess to the limit prescribed for enchashment in no way makes the award bad. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/