DBSAW NO.1165/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1165/2007. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6682/1999. Municipal Corporation, Kota Vs. Chandra Sen and others Date of order:- September 8, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjay Pareek for the appellant. Shri Kailash Sharma for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT :- This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9/10/2006 whereunder writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kota dated 13/7/1999 was dismissed. 2) Shri Sanjay Pareek, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in directing that the respondents-workmen should be regularised after six months from the date DBSAW NO.1165/07. 2 of their appointment and should be given all consequential benefits. It was argued that learned Tribunal misinterpreted the earlier award dated 18/3/1987 which directed that action should be taken to regularise such of the daily wage employees working with the Municipal Corporation Kota who had completed 6 months and if necessary, the government should be approached for creating permanent post. It was contended that though the respondents-workmen were working with the appellant at the time when the aforesaid award was rendered on 18/3/1987 but they were not in their employment when reference was made. In any case the respondents-workmen have been regularised in their services in the year 1954. 3) A perusal of the award dated 18/3/1987 indicates that a reference to the Industrial Tribunal was made by appropriate government on the question whether such of the temporary daily wage employees who have completed six months or more, with the services of the appellant-Municipal Corporation Kota, are entitled to regularisation and in the event of their regularisation what relief they are entitled to? Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in terms that Municipal Corporation Kota should take steps to regularise those daily wage employees who have completed six months and government should be approached for creating necessary permanent post. When the respondents-workmen were not regularised, they DBSAW NO.1165/07. 3 again approached the appropriate government and reference was again made on the question whether the action of the Municipal Corporation in not regularising the respondents-workmen w.e.f. 8/1/1985 even after they had completed six months, was legal and justified and if not what relief they were entitled to? The Industrial Tribunal answered this reference in the terms that the respondents-workmen would be entitled to regularisation against the sanctioned vacant post, subject to availability, with all consequential benefits. 4) Shri Kailash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen has submitted that award of the Tribunal dated 18/3/1987 was challenged by the Municipal Corporation before this Court in writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 20/11/1991 and thereafter the special appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the Division Bench in D.B.S.A.W. No.489/1992 vide judgment dated 28/7/1992. Special leave to appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation Kota was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 6/4/1993. In fact learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the said writ petition issued a positive direction to the respondent Municipal Corporation Kota by partly amending the award to the effect that all workmen who have completed six months or more, in their services, DBSAW NO.1165/07. 4 shall be regularised and would be entitled to same benefits as had been given to other regular employees of the Corporation. 5) We find in the present case that the respondent-workmen have been working with the appellant since 1983. When the appellant have regularised one set of employees, award of the Tribunal in directing the same benefit to be given to the respondents-workmen cannot be faulted, there being no difference. In fact, the appellant were in terms of the earlier award of the Tribunal were required to deal with the case of the respondents-workmen. Even otherwise, case of the respondents-workmen cannot be said to be distinguishable from that of the other employees like them, who were regularised in the first place. 6) In view of the aforesaid judgment which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal was wholly justified in answering the reference in the manner it was done. Judgment of the learned Single Bench, in our view, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil