Full Judgment
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The appellant State is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 328/91 filed by the respondents. The respondents had prayed that they have been appointed in the first instance in the month of April as Nakedar in the Mines and Mineral Deptt. Their services were terminated on 5.2.1982 and they were reemployed in August 1982. Thereafter their services were again terminated on 31st July 1983. The termination of their services on 31.7.1983 was made subject matter of the reference as an industrial dispute which under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Jodhpur on 30.9.1988. Finding the termination to be illegal, they were reinstated with 50% of the back wages and continuity of their service and other consequential benefits. The award of the Tribunal was published on 20.3.1989. That award became final. On these premise that the two petitioners were continuously in service since August 25, 1982 on their re-employment after the first termination order and they became entitled to be made semi-permanent in August 1985 on completion of three years, under the Work Charge Employees Services Condition, 1974 as has been made applicable to be Mines & Geology Deptt. and became entitled to the permanent on completion of 10 years in service. Since on their representation the State Government has not acted, petition was filed claiming the relief that the non-petitioners appellants be directed to grant the semi permanent status to the petitioners from 25.8.1985 and permanent status from the date of completion of 10 years of their service. They also prayed for direction to fix the petitioners in the regular pay scales applicable for the post of Nakedar from the date of their initial appointment according to their educational qualification. The respondents in their reply did not controvert any of the facts, but asserted that some time is taken by the Govt. in processing the case for declaring the work charge employees as semi permanent or permanent after due consideration of their case and ultimately the petitioners have been granted semi permanent status and consequent fixation in the regular pay scale for Nakedar from 29 August 1992; that is to say after filing of petition.
2. In these circumstances the learned single Judge allowed the petition by holding that since the petitioners have been reinstated w.e.f. their date of reemployment in service i.e. 25.8.1982 with continuity of service, they must deemed to be in service since 1982 and entitled to be considered for grant of permanent status in 1985 and if otherwise no other impediment is there entitled to be declared semi permanent w.e.f. 25.8.1985, the date of completion of three years of service, necessary for conferring semi permanent status. Learned Single Judge also noticed that notwithstanding order passed by them on 29.8.1992 the non-petitioners in the petition had admitted that the status of semi permanent shall be given to the petitioners w.e.f. 29.4.1989 on completion of two years of service. In view of this finding that there was no jurisdiction for fixing 29.4.1989 as the date of conferring semi permanent status by ignoring the continuity of service granted by the Tribunal, the court directed the non-petitioner to grant semi permanent status to the petitioners from 25th August 1985 when they completed three years of service w.e.f. their appointment 25.8.1982 when the petitioners were re-employed after the services offered to the petitioners in the first instance in 1980 were the brought to an end as 29.4.1982, and also directed to confirm permanent status on the petitioners on completion of 10 years of service from their continuance officiation since 25.8.1982. The learned single Judge also directed to fix the respondents to fix at the minimum of the pay scales applicable for the post of Nakedar from the date of initial appointment, according to their educational and other qualifications.
3. It has been urged by the Addl. Advocate General, that the court should have left it to the appellants to determine the date of semi permanent status on the basis of adjudging petitioners' satisfactory functioning from the period of their continuity of service. It was urged by Mr. Jangid that it is for the employer to judge the satisfactory nature of the functioning and to grant semi permanent or permanent status on that basis the same cannot be conferred automatically on completion of the period of service. The contention fails to impress us. The State Govt. considering, the working of petitioner to be satisfactory during the actual working of the petitioner agreed contrary to its own order of 1992 to grant semi permanent status to the petitioners w.e.f. 20.4.1989 the date on which award of the Tribunal was published. It is inherent in it that there is nothing to suggest about the unsatisfactory working of the petitioners while they were in service the only criterion on the basis of which the incumbent can be denied the right to be treated as semi permanent status on completion of three years of service continuous on the post. Having taken that stand it is now not open for the State to urge that they have still to consider the satisfactory functioning of the petitioners. The date suggested for conferring semi permanent or permanent by the State before the learned single Judge speaks for itself that it does not take into account the period of service between 1982 to 1989 and because of termination of the service of the petitioner by the appellants non-petitioners ignoring that the Tribunal has found such termination of service to be illegal and inoperative, by reinstating the petitioner w.e.f. the date of termination of services giving the benefit of continuity. Such an award must be given full effect and be taken to its logical consequences by holding that the petitioners are deemed to continue in service w.e.f. 25th August 1982 continuously and they became entitled to semi-permanent status on completion of three years of service on 25 August 1985. Their being nothing against their unsatisfactory working they are entitled to be granted semi permanent status w.e.f. 25 August 1985. With these observations we reject the first: submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General.
4. It is next contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General that at any rate the respondents could not have been given benefit of regular pay scale applicable to the post of Nakedar from the date of their initial appointment, that is to say w.e.f. 25.8.1982. Petitioners could have been conferred the benefit of regular pay scale only w.e.f. date they were conferred semi permanent status. Mr. G.K. Vyas appearing for the respondent workmen does not dispute this position. Accordingly the appeal must succeed to this extent that the petitioners (Workmen) are entitled to regular pay scale applicable for the post of Nakedar from the date they were accorded semi permanent or permanent status that is to say w.e.f. 25.8.1995 according to their additional or other educational qualification.
5. With these directions this petition is partly allowed.
6. There shall be no orders as to costs.