Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ361Raj; 1989(2)WLN682
S.S. Byas, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner which is an Employees' Union challenges the validity and correctness of the notice Annexure-2, dated June 28, 1983, issued by respondent No. 3, viz. the Managing Director, Rajasthan Small-Scale Industrial Corporation Limited. By the impugned notice Annexure-2, the Management of the Corporation decided to close down its one unit, namely, Furniture Making Centre, Jaipur, w.e.f. July 1, 1983.2. Material facts stated in short are that the Rajasthan Small-Scale Industries Corporation Ltd., Jaipur is an industry organising and managing many industrial establishments employing nearly 3,000 workmen. One of the establishments was that of Furniture Making Centre at Jaipur. Relations between the workmen employed in Furniture Making Centre and the ment did not remain cordial on account of the submission of a charter of demands (Annexure-4A) on 28.8,1980 by the petitioner-Union. In order to victimise the workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ855Raj; 1993(3)WLC551
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. The petitioner has claimed that he was appointed as Beldar in January, 1987. He has completed 240 days of working during last 12 calendar months. He was appointed in the P. W.D. and at the time of filing of the writ petition he was working at Sikar- Salasar Road. The petitioner has enclosed Schedule 'A' in support of his assertion that he had worked for 240 days. The work on which the petitioner was engaged comes under the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer. P.W.D., Division Sikar. There are four sub-divisions under him. The work under those sub-divisions has not been completed. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner has been retrenched by an oral order dated July 16, 1988. No notice was given to the petitioner nor any compensation has been paid to him. The rule of 'last come first go' has not been followed. The petitioner has stated that termination of his service is liable to be declared as void because of violation of Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Indust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ442Raj; 1995(3)WLC751; 1995(1)WLN605
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the documents placed on the record.2. This case pertains to a dispute of the workman, who was initially appointed on the post of Carpenter with effect from December 26, 1985 by Installation Officer, Programme Production Centre, Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur (Respondent No. 3). The selection of the petitioner was against a vacancy which had arisen following the name of the petitioner being sponsored from the Employment Exchange, Jaipur. The contention of the petitioner is that notwithstanding that he was appointed as a daily-wager, he worked full-time at par with the regularly selected and permanent employees but his salary was not fixed in the regular pay-scale and instead the petitioner was paid Rs. 35/- per day only and there was violation of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It has further been conducted that the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from November 1, 1986 by an oral ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1755; 2002(5)WLN269
Balia, J.1. The common issue raised in all these cases is the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 (hereinafter called Act of 1999). Various provisions of the Act more particularly Sections 2(v), 9, 11 and 19 of the Act are being assailed as ultra vires. Consequent relief has been asked in each petition, as we shall notice later on, to quash the directions issued and order passed in pursuance there of under the provisions of Act of 1999.Brief View of Impugned Provisions 2. As per its preamble, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter called, 'the Act of 1999') to regulate appointments in the public service and prohibit irregular appointments in offices and establishments under the control of the State Government, local authorities, public corporations and Universities etc. 3. In brief, the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)IILLJ779Raj; RLW2003(1)Raj626; 2003(1)WLC772; 2003(1)WLN612
Singh, CJ. 1. By this writ petition the petitioners challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dated 25.9.2002 passed in O.A. No. 398/97. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, are as follows:-2. On 21.3.1980 the private respondent was appointed as Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, on 4.3.1991 his services were regularised. On 30.4.1996, a medical board was constituted, for his medical examination. After the receipt of the opinion of the medical board his services were terminated on 30.9.1996 as he was found to be unfit for government service on account of medical disability. With effect from the same date the said respondent was granted disability pension. The private respondent feeling aggrieved by his termination, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. The Tribunal, vide impugned order, directed as follows:-'Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed. The order Annex.A.1 is hereby quashed. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ206Raj; 1994(2)WLC609; 1994(1)WLN235
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on November 27, 1965 as a Mistry for maintaining the pump-sets and for driving the tractor. He was later on appointed as tractor driver one month after. He was retrenched by order dated March 26, 1977. The said order was held to be invalid by the award, annexure 5 of the Lower Court, Udaipur, dated March 15, 1979 inter-alia on the ground that retrenchment was effected without following the mandate of Chapter V B of the Industrial Disputes Act. A writ petition against that order was also dismissed by this Court and the petitioner was reinstated with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated September 8, 1982, the petitioner was again retrenched by giving him notice of termination of his services forthwith. The termination order was enclosed with a cheque for the three months wages. It is this order dated September 8, 1982 which was challenged before this Court in this petition inter- alia on the ground that the retr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1969Raj95; (1968)IILLJ682Raj
Mehta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Good Year India Ltd. praying for quashing the order of reference dated 16th May, 1967 by the Government of Rajasthan to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the purported adjudication.2. The petitioner, Good Year India Ltd., is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Head Office at 225-C Acharya Jagdish Bose Road, Calcutta with branches at many places in India including the one at Swastika House, Station Road, Jaipur. Shri A. A. Dhingra; respondent No. 4 was previously sales representative of the Company at Jullunder. In January, 1954, he was posted at Jaipur in the same capacity. On April 1, 1964 he was made sales assistant and on 1st January, 1966 he was made area supervisor. As an area supervisor, Shri Dhingra was in charge of the whole of the State of Rajasthan and a few towns of Madhya Pradesh. On 16-12-66,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR595]; (2003)ILLJ256Raj; RLW2003(3)Raj1996; 2003(1)WLC47
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved with the award of Labour Court as modified by the judgment of learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1301/2000. 2. The facts of the case are that the services of respondent-workman were terminated w.e.f. October 16, 1985. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging that he has actually worked in 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination for 229 days excluding the paid holidays and Sundays. 3. He also alleged that while terminating his services a person junior to him was allowed to continue in service and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have also not been followed by way of giving a notice of one month before termination of services or one months remuneration in lieu of such notice and retrenchment compensation. 4. In substance the termination was alleged to be in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj787; 2006(1)WLC734
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 17.9.1993 in S.B.C. Writ Petition No.2031/1993 whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ ' petition upholding the order of the competent authority under the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (shortly referred to as the 'Act of 1958'). The competent authority under the Act of 1958 had refused to entertain the application filed by the appellant challenging the order of this termination on the ground that the employer of the appellant. M/s. Anil Steel and Industries Ltd. was registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and, therefore, the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1958 are not applicable. The competent authority further observed that the petitioner may raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This order was confirmed by the competent auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ316Raj; 1996WLC(Raj)UC368
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality of the Award dated, August 24, 1994, passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby termination of the workmen, namely, Shamsher, Kamlesh, Kamal Singh and Dhruv Singh was held to be invalid for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2. The claim of the workmen was based on the facts that they were in employment of the petitioner, working in irrigation Department, Dho-lpur Division, from January 1, 1978 and their services were terminated without making compliance of Section 25F and 25G of the Act, inasmuch as, they were neither given one month's notice in writing nor paid wages for the period of notice and retrenchment compensation. They also pleaded that the employer did not publish the seniority list to show that they were the last persons to be employed in their category....
Tag this Judgment!