1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 121 of 2007 THE CHIEF ENGI.(T&C),R.R.V.P.N.LTD.& ANR V/S JUDGE,I.T.CUM LABOUR COURT,JODHPUR & ANR 2. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 122 of 2007 CHIF ENGINEER(T&C),R.R.V.P.N.LTD. & ANR. V/S JUDGE,I.T.CUM LABOUR COURT,JODHPUR & ANR 3. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 137 of 2007 R.R.V.P.N.LTD. & ANR. V/S MADAN SINGH & ANR. 4. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 140 of 2007 R.R.V.P.NIGAM LTD. & ANR. V/S HARKA RAM & ANR. 5. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 335 of 2007 R.R.V.P.N.LTD. V/S DEVI SINGH & ANR. Mr. RAVI BHANSALI & Mr. MANOJ BHANDARI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SKM VYAS, for the respondents Date of Order : 15.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- All these five appeals involve common question of law, and are being decided by this common order. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since statutory regulations viz. Rajasthan State Electricity Technical Workman Service Regulations, 1975, and R.S.E.B.Employees (Emoluments) Regulations, 1978 had been promulgated, and therefore, when the appellant had issued notice under Section 19(2) on 13.11.80 i.e. after promulgation of the Rules, the award could not be given effect to. As against this learned counsel for the workman submits that the appellant is taking different stands at different stages inasmuch in the cases of many other employees, this issue was not raised about non subsistance of the award consequent upon promulgation of the aforesaid two Regulations, and the relief granted to those workman has become final even by disposal of the writ petitions by this Court. Then, it is also contended that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India Vs. D.J.Bahadur reported in (1981) 1 SCC-315 which has been subsequently followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. KSRTC Staff & Workers' Federation reported in (1999)2 SCC-687 that unless fresh settlement is arrived at mere giving notice 3 under Section 19(2) does not terminate the award, and therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in remanding the matter. In our view, since this question had not been gone into as to what is the effect of the award on the face of Regulations of 1975 and 1978, so also the question as to whether the rights of the workman are to be governed by the Regulations of 1975, Regulations of 1978, or they are entitled to the benefits by virtue of the award are also the questions which are required to be gone into by the learned trial court (Labour Court). In that view of the matter, though for different reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of remand. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed summarily. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the parties to raise all questions including the Settlement of 1971, Singh and Sancheti Award, Regulations of 1975 and the Regulations of 1978 etc. before the learned Labour Court, and the learned Labour Court will examine those controversies. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/