S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4576/2004 Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. Judge, Labour Court & Anr. DATE OF ORDER :: 04.04.2007 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Addl. Govt. Advocate. *** By this petition for writ the validity propriety and correctness of the award dated 19.2.2004 passed by the labour court, Jodhpur is questioned. In brief the facts of the case are that the appropriate government by its notification dated 24.9.2001 referred an industrial dispute to the labour court, Jodhpur for its adjudication in following terms: “Whether the employer Dy. Chief Medical and Health Officer (Family Welfare), Sirohi is justified in not giving permanent status and regular pay scale to its workman Smt. Sharda Devi W/o Sh. Fatehlal? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?” To substantiate the claim the workman came forward with the case that she entered in the services of Medical and Health Department on 10.1.1989 with the wages of Rs.100/- per month. The Department utilised her service for entire day but no facility for which a regular class IV employee is entitled was given to her. The workman also stated that the respondent-department erroneously treated her as a part time employee. The employer in its written stated that the services of the workman were utilised on part time basis and that too just for about half an hour per day. The parties to the dispute were permitted to adduce evidence accordingly an affidavit sworn in by the workman was filed wherein she reiterated that her services were utilised by the department for about nine hours and she was discharging the duties of Class IV employee for all purposes. In cross-examination too she reiterated whatever she said in the affidavit. It is pertinent to note that the workman produced certain documents wherein she is shown as a part-time employee with an assertion in the affidavit that she was erroneously shown as part-time employee with an assertion in the documents so produced. No evidence on part of employer was adduced despite several opportunities. The labour court on basis of the documents produced by the workman found her a part-time employee and negatived her claim by the award impugned. By giving challenge to the award it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was sufficient evidence available on record to treat the petitioner a full time employee and the labour court erred while giving a finding that the workman was employed on part-time basis. It is asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents on which labour court has placed reliance were impugned by the workman by saying that in those documents she was erroneously shown as part time employee. The stand of the respondents is that the labour court on basis of the documents referred above rightly treated the petitioner a part-time employee. Heard counsel for the parties. From examination of the award impugned it is apparent that the labour court treated the petitioner a part-time employee on basis of the documents produced by the workman with a specific statement that in those documents she was wrongly shown as a part-time employee. As a matter of fact those documents were placed under cloud by the workman. While impugning those documents the workman in her statements, in most specific terms, stated that she worked for nine hours with the employer and she also discharged all the duties pertaining to a class IV employee. No evidence was available on record to controvert whatever the workman said. The finding given by the labour court is solely based on the documents produced by the workman and validity of those documents was challenged by the workman. The labour court without examining validity of those documents by relying upon them gave a finding that the workman was employed on part- time basis. I am of the considered opinion that without examining validity of those documents the labour court should have not based its findings on them, specially in the circumstances that no evidence was adduced by the employer and the workman in specific terms stated that she was working for complete nine hours and was discharging the duties of a class IV employee. I do not find any just and valid reason available to the labour court to disbelieve the statement given by the workman. In view of it, the award impugned is perverse and the same deserves to be quashed. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed. The award impugned is quashed and it is declared that on basis of the evidence available on record the petitioner be treated as a full time Class IV employee with the respondents. The respondent employer -Department, therefore, is directed to allow minimum of the regular pay scale pertaining to the post of Class IV employee to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.9.2001, the date on which reference of the dispute was made to labour court for its adjudication. No order as to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. J.Goyal