{ 1 } S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.713/2008. SMT. VARDI BAI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS DATE OF ORDER : 09.01.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Bharat Shrimali for Mr.Shambhoo Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati for the respondents. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 21.06.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur in industrial dispute No.06/2001. In brief, facts of the case are that the appropriate government under its notification dated 28.11.2000, referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to Labour Court,Udaipur in the terms as to “whether termination of workman Smt. Vardi Bai w/o Shri Bhanwarlal Teli, resident of 169, Sajjan Nagar, OTC Block B, Udaipur, Chaukidar-cum-sweeper was rightly and validly terminated from service on 30.08.1992 by the Superintendent, Government Scheduled Tribe Hostel, Department of Social Welfare? If not, then to what relief, the workman is entitled?” The petitioner workman submitted a Statement of Claim before the Labour Court stating therein that she was employed as Cook-cum-choukidar at Government Scheduled { 2 } Tribe Hostel (Boys), Ambamata, Udaipur on 01.01.1983. She worked on the post aforesaid up to 30.08.1992. However, subsequent thereto by an oral order, she was discontinued from service. In written, the Superintendent, Scheduled Tribe Hostel, Social Welfare Department, Udaipur stated that appointment to the petitioner was never given by his office and she never worked in his subordination. It was also stated that as per Rajkiya and Anudanit Chhatravas Seva Niyam, 1982, a Mess Committee was operating in the Hostel concern and the petitioner would have been working under the Mess Committee and as such, if any, relationship of master and servant was there and that was between the petitioner and the Mess Committee and not with the office of the Superintendent, Scheduled Tribe Hostel, Department of Social Welfare, Udaipur. The labour court after considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and after perusing the record held that the petitioner was working with Mess Management Committee and not with the Social Welfare Department and as such in absence of Mess Management Committee, no relief as prayed could have been granted. The Tribunal while holding as above, also declared that the termination of the petitioner workman was just and valid. { 3 } While challenging the award aforesaid, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Mess Management Committee, as a matter of fact, was not employer of the petitioner, but a body created for execution of day to day functioning of the Hostel. It is also asserted that the Mess Management Committee was receiving aid from the Government of Rajasthan through the Department of Social Welfare and wages were paid to the petitioner from that amount only. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The labour court held termination of the petitioner valid only on the count that Mess Management Committee was not party to the proceedings. The Mess Management Committee, as a matter of fact, is a body constituted as per Rule 9 of the Government and Aided Hostels (Conduct) Rules,1982 for smooth running of the hostels under control of Social Welfare Department. The Rules aforesaid are administrative instructions issued by the government being necessary to manage day to day affairs of the Hostel. The Mess Management Committee is not having its independent sanctity as an employer under the Rules of 1982. Whatever amount is paid to the employees of the Hostel through the Mess Management Committee is a part of { 4 } finance provided by the Government of Rajasthan. The Hostel Superintendent is Head of the Mess Management Committee and he is getting assistance by five resident students of the Hostel. In view of it, the finding given by the labour court that the Mess Management Committee itself is an employer is apparently erroneous. The petitioner was working with a Government Hostel, which is absolutely under control of Social Welfare Department. In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The award dated 21.06.2007 is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed. The Labour Court, Udaipur is directed to adjudicate the industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate government under notification No.F.1{1}854 {Shra.Ni/2000 dated 28.11.2000 afresh by treating the respondent as employer of the workman. Such dispute is required to be decided by the labour court within a period of one year from today. The Registry is directed to send a certify copy of the order to the Labour Court, Udaipur forthwith. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/