IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- (1) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 798 of 1998 SAMBHAR SAILTS LIMITED & ANR V/S SHYAM SINGH (2) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 799 of 1998 SAMBHAR SALTS LIMITED & ANR V/S SUWALAL (3) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 805 of 1998 SAMBHAR SALTS LIMITED & ANR V/S MADAN LAL PEEPARAL (4) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 843 of 1998 SAMBHAR SALTS LIMITED & ANR V/S ISHWAR RAM Mr. HARISH PUROHIT for Mr. SANJAY MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SUKESH BHATI, for the respondent Date of Order : 4.3.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- All these four matters involve common question, and one leading case out of the lot, had been decided earlier, being Madan Lal's case, wherein the Division Bench had already decided the matter, being appeal against the judgment rendered in S.B. C.W.P. No. 1372/94. A review petition was also filed unsuccessfully, and the matter was ultimately carried to Hon'ble the Supreme Court, where it was ultimately registered as Civil Appeal No.1784/2001. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition on 21.1.98 proceeded on the basis of concession of the parties, and in review petition, Division Bench noted that it was not on the consent of the parties. However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court noticed, that there is no basis for coming to the conclusion, that the person, who is working on daily wages, was entitled to minimum regular pay scale, as regular pay scale has specific concept in service laws, therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge, and learned Division Bench were set aside, and in view of the long period of services rendered by the workman, it was directed, that this aspect may be considered by High Court, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. Though this lot of Special Appeals had not been decided, and did not go to Hon’ble the Supreme Court, however in view of the fact that in identical matter the above referred judgment has been rendered, we have heard the learned counsel for either side, keeping in view the decision rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above judgment. Since all these matters are identical, we are 2 taking the facts of S.A.W. No.798/98, and its corresponding Writ Petition No. 1432/94. At the outset, we are constrained to observe, that in the reply filed on behalf of the present appellant, who was the respondent before the learned Single Judge, at page 6 of the reply, a specific plea has been taken as under:- “The petitioner has got a channel of promotion from the category of 240 days completed service workers alongwith seasonal workers of the Company on the basis of seniority failing which by direct recruitment through employment Exchange..” Then in para 9 again it has been pleaded as under:- “The petitioner has got a channel of promotion as per Company's Recruitment and Promotion Rules on the post of Kyar Baramasi and other such workers were in the regular grade as per Company's Recruitment and Promotion Rules.” Then in para 10 again it has been pleaded as under:- “...there is no cause of action for filing this writ petition as the Petitioner is continuing in the services of the Company as daily rated workman and will get the promotion in due course in accordance with the provisions of the Company's Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1994” 3 With this, even after going through the entire reply, we do not find, as to, according to the respondents, what duties are being discharged by the writ petitioners. They are being described only as working as unskilled persons, on daily rated basis. A look at the Company's Rules, being Annex.R/2 shows, that in the entire cadre, the lowest is the category of unskilled workers, which comprises of 6 types of workers, being Helper (EME Section), Helper Store, Kyar Baramasi, P.W. Baramasi, Lab. Bearer, and Helper, and significantly, the pay scale of all these categories, is 750-940, uniformly. In view of the above state of pleadings, even if the writ petitioners are taken to be workers, being unskilled workers, since it is contended by the appellants, that the writ petitioners are entitled to promotion, obviously we do not find any justification for denying them the pay scale of Rs.750-940, when they are working for more than long period of time, ranging beyond one and a half decade. So far the question about writ petitioners being working as ED Pump Driver is concerned, this is a question in dispute, as according to the writ petitioners, they are working as ED Pump Drivers, while according to the appellants, they are working as unskilled workers, which question can appropriately be gone into by the Labour 4 Court, or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may, but cannot be gone into the writ jurisdiction, from which the appeal arises. At the same time, we do not find any justification for not paying the pay scale of 750-940 to the writ petitioners, at least from the date they have approached this Court, by filing the writ petition. Of course, it is always open to the appellant- Company itself, to look into the ground realities objectively, bearing an honest attitude, as to whether the writ petitioners are actually working as ED Pump Drivers, and if so, to grant them the relief accordingly. However, so far as the present appeals are concerned, we confine ourselves to the extent of granting relief to the writ petitioners, to the extent, that they are held entitled to the pay scale of 750-940, with all revisions of the scales from time to time, with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition. The appellant shall compute all the arrears within a period of two months, and make payment within a period four months. If they fail to make payment within four months, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of the amount falling due, till actual payment. It is further directed that in that event the writ petitioners will be free to get this order enforced, as a decree of the Civil Court, from the 5 concerned principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of as above. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/ 6