1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.635/2007 SMT. PARI DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 07.10.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit for the petitioner. Mr. L.K. Purohit for the respondents. To challenge the award dated 30.06.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in industrial dispute No.6/2004, this petition for writ is preferred. By the award aforesaid, learned labour court negativated the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 06.2.2004 in the terms, “whether the non-applicants (1) Assistant Engineer, Gangnagar Link Sub Division I, Sri Ganganagar and (2) Executive Engineer, Link Channel Division, Sri Ganganagar are right in not conferring semi permanent and permanent status to workman Ishar Ram s/o Shri Jesaram represented by President, Bhakra Gangnahar, Rashtriya Mazdoor Union, Sri Ganganagar on completion of 2 and 10 years of service on 1.12.85 and 1.12.93 respectively? If not, then for what relief, the workman is entitled?” 2 As per the averments contained in the award impugned, the workman Ishar Ram was employed as Beldar with Assistant Engineer, Gangnahar, Link Sub Division I on 1.12.83 and continued as such for quite a long period. As per Rule 3 of the Rajasthan P.W.D (B&R), including Gardens, Irrigation,, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1964”), Work Charged employees (including the regular technical staff of Water Works Department) are entitled to be conferred with permanent status on completion of 10 years of service and semi permanent status on completion of 2 years of service, but no such status was conferred to the workman concerned. Being aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute, that was referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in the terms mentioned above. The labour court after considering whatever material available on record, reached at the conclusion that on the date of appointment i.e. 1.12.83, the workman was beyond the maximum age limit prescribed for employment and as such his appointment was illegal, therefore, he was not at all entitled to be conferred with semi permanent and permanent status. The award given by the labour court on 30.06.04 acquired finality on its publication as per Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the appropriate government on 31.01.2005. Workman 3 Ishar Ram after passing of the award by the Labour Court on 30.06.2004 died on 30.08.2004 i.e. prior to publication of the award and as such validity of the same is challenged by workman's wife – the present petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of Rule 3 simply prescribes that employees in continuous service for 2 years or more, except those covered by sub-rule (1) shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work charged employees, provided their record of service, in opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory and also that employees who have been in service for 10 years or more shall be eligible for status of permanent work charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. The Rule concerned nowhere prescribes that such an employee should have been appointed within the age limit prescribed under the Rules or that if the initial appointment is not as per Rules, then the semi permanent status or permanent status, as the case may, shall not be awarded. It is also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 5 of the Work Charged Rules, 1964, the employment under the Rules shall be made by applying age and qualifications applicable to the employees of corresponding categories on 4 regular establishment and there is no post of either of Beldar or corresponding thereto in regular establishment, as such, concept of age, as adopted by the labour court is having no relevance in present controversy. Per contra, as per Shri L.K. Purohit appearing on behalf of the respondents, the appointment of workman Ishar Ram was dehor the rules and as such the labour court rightly denied for conferment of semi permanent and permanent status to him. It is asserted that as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1964, the appointment of the workman should have been made within the age prescribed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. At the threshold, it is relevant to note that on asking, learned counsel for the respondents shown his inability to indicate any post of regular establishment i.e. corresponding to the post of Beldar. Query in this regard was made on the count that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1964 prescribes that “in the employment of staff covered by these rules, the same rules and policies regarding age and qualifications should be applied as are applicable to employees of corresponding categories on regular 5 establishment”. I have also examined the Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963, wherein too, no post of Beldar or corresponding thereto is referred as a cadre post. Similarly, the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Services created under the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate (Irrigation Branch) Rules 1967 does not include post of Beldar or corresponding thereto in it. As such, I am unable to find out any post that is said to be corresponding to the post of Beldar under the regular establishment. If such corresponding post is not available on regular establishment, then Rule 5 of the Rules of 1964 in no case could have been employed in case of the workman in question. No specific age of employment is prescribed under the Rules of 1964, thus, there is no maximum age limit for the purpose of appointment to the post of Beldar is prescribed, therefore, the finding given by the labour court that appointment of workman Ishar Ram was not as per Rules, is having no foundation. Once the appointment of the workman is found as per the Rules of 1964, then it was obligatory upon the employer to consider his case for grant of semi permanent and permanent status as per provisions of Rule 3 and that was admittedly not done by the employer. Beside the above, for the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the appointment was given to the workman 6 beyond the age limit prescribed under the Rules, then too, there was no reason available to the respondent employer for not considering his case for conferment of semi permanent or permanent status. It is admitted position between the parties that appointment was given to workman Ishar Ram as Beldar on 01.12.83 and he was allowed to continue as such without interruption. The respondents employer never objected continuation of the workman in service on the count that his appointment was dehors the rules, hence, it was not open to raise this issue before the labour court while contesting the claim for grant of semi permanent and permanent status. Once the appointment was accorded to the workman and he was allowed to continue in service without any interruption, then all ancillary service benefits should have been given to him by the employer. It is pertinent to note here that Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 is not at all dependent on any condition except that the workman should have completed 2 years of satisfactory service. In these circumstances, I am of considered opinion that the labour court committed an error while denying workman Ishar Ram for his right to be considered for grant of semi permanent and permanent status under the Rules of 1964. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The award impugned dated 30.6.2004 passed by the labour court, 7 Sri Ganganagar in industrial dispute No.6/2004, published by the appropriate government under the notification dated 31.01.2005 is hereby declared illegal and thus is quashed. The industrial dispute referred by the appropriate government under the notification dated 06.02.2004 is answered in the terms that the Assistant Engineer, Gangnahar, Link Sub Division I, Sri Ganganagar and Executive Engineer, Gangnahar, Link Channel Division, Sri Ganganagar were not justified in denying consideration for semi permanent and permanent status to workman Ishar Ram s/o Jesa Ram on completion of 2 and 10 years of service on 1.12.85 and 1.12.93. Accordingly, the workman is entitled to be considered for grant of semi permanent and permanent status as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 on completion of 2 and 10 years of service. He is also declared entitled for all consequential benefits. Whatever benefits accruing to him as a consequent to the directions above, are now required to be given to the present petitioner, who is widow of workman Ishar Ram. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/