Dilip Kumar Vs. the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Labour and Industrial |
| Rajasthan High Court |
| May-11-2009 |
| Prakash Tatia, J. |
| 2009(2)WLN243 |
| Dilip Kumar |
| The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti and anr. |
| Petition dismissed |
industrial disputes act, 1947 - section 10--labour law--lump sum award instead of reinstatement in service--labour court found that the petitioner was removed from service from 01.04.1991 and thereafter, he was taken in service on contract basis from 10.04.1991--labour court also held that the employee was in other service from 30.05.1993 to 30.06.2000--in the facts of the case, if the labour court has not granted the relief of reinstatement and back wages, the labour court has not committed any error of fact or law and instead in awarding lump sum compensation of rs. 50,000/-. - labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction.prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. the petitioner's order of removal from service was found to be illegal by the labour court, udaipur in labour case no. 114/2000 vide award dt. 17.07.2007. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the labour court committed error in awarding lumpsum amount of compensation of rs. 50,000/- in lieu of service.3. i considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case.4. it has been found by the labour court that the petitioner was removed from service from 01.04.1991 and thereafter, it is alleged that he was taken in service on contract basis from 10.04.1991. the labour court also held that the employee petitioner was in other service from 30.05.1993 to 30.06.2000. since in the facts of the case, if the labour court has not granted the relief of reinstatement and back wages, the labour court has not committed any error of fact or law as the petitioner was already in service with another employer.5. in view of the above reasons, i do not find any illegality in the impugned award. consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.
Prakash Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's order of removal from service was found to be illegal by the Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case No. 114/2000 vide award dt. 17.07.2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court committed error in awarding lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of service.
3. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case.
4. It has been found by the Labour Court that the petitioner was removed from service from 01.04.1991 and thereafter, it is alleged that he was taken in service on contract basis from 10.04.1991. The Labour Court also held that the employee petitioner was in other service from 30.05.1993 to 30.06.2000. Since in the facts of the case, if the Labour Court has not granted the relief of reinstatement and back wages, the Labour Court has not committed any error of fact or law as the petitioner was already in service with another employer.
5. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.