Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
General Secretary, Rajasthan … vs Managing Director/Chief Manager, … on 5 March, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 164/2024
General Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Organization,
881, Teesra Chauraha, Baba Harish Chandra Marg, Jaipur.
(Workman Shri Abdul Razzak S/o Shri Chand Khan).
----Appellant
Versus
Managing Director/chief Manager, Jaipur Agar, Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoren
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
05/03/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
2. This appeal has been filed aggrieved by order dated
16.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ
petition filed by the Management against the workman in the
matter of challenge to the award of the Labour Court, has been
allowed and the award has been set aside.
3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned order,
learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned
Single Judge fell in error of facts and law both in upsetting the
award on the ground of delay. It is further submitted that on the
aspect as to whether the appellant was entitled to grant of
selection grade, contrary to the material on record, finding has
been recorded that the record of the appellant was tainted
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:55:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-164/2024]
whereas, after 2004, till second selection grade became due in
2013, there was no blemishness and the record was clean without
any penalty or adverse remarks. Learned counsel for the
appellant argued that the grant of first selection grade was
delayed and it was granted as late as in the year, 2004. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that in view of
subsequent events, the appellant does not press claim for grant of
third selection grade.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Management
would argue that the Labour Court exceeded jurisdiction in
passing an award beyond the terms of reference. He would
contend that the terms of reference did not include any issue with
regard to claim of first selection grade from due date. According
to him, the learned Single Judge rightly held that claim of
selection grades was barred by delay and laches as the workman
did not raise the dispute within a reasonable time, relying upon
various judgments.
4.1. Replying to the second argument of the appellant, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that the Labour Court
perversely recorded that no material was placed to substantiate
that the service record of the appellant was not satisfactory.
Referring to the material contained alongwith the records of the
writ petition, learned counsel would submit that there were
several penalties imposed on the appellant and, therefore, grant of
selection grade which is pre-conditioned with satisfactory service
record, could not be claimed as a matter of right.
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:55:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-164/2024]
5. It is not disputed that the appellant was appointed in the
year 1986. Therefore, first selection grade became due in the year
1995, but the same was granted in the year 2004. The appellant
did not raise any dispute either in the year, 1995 or even in the
year, 2004. Therefore, his claim insofar as grant of first selection
grade in the year 1995 is concerned, was stale and to that extent,
the order of the Labour Court is illegal, as rightly held by learned
Single Judge.
5.1. However, as far as claim of second selection grade is
concerned, the appellant was entitled to the same before
completion of another nine years of service from the date of grant
of first selection grade. Even assuming that the appellant could
not claim grant of first selection grade prior to 2004, his second
selection grade became due in the year, 2013. When it was not
granted, immediately thereafter, the appellant raised dispute and
the State Government made reference of dispute to the Labour
Court. Therefore, as far as claim of second selection grade is
concerned, the same cannot be said to be barred by delay and
laches. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge, insofar as
claim of second selection grade is concerned, proceed on wrong
factual premise that the claim was barred by delay and laches.
The appellant could not have claimed grant of first selection grade
w.e.f. the due date i.e. in the year 1995 but atleast he was
entitled to claim second selection grade from 2013 i.e. 9 years
after the grant of first selection grade in the year 2004. Therefore,
to that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained and rejection of the claim of the appellant insofar as
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:55:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-164/2024]
second selection grade in the year 2013 is concerned, is held
illegal.
6. Learned Single Judge rejected the appellant’s claim for
selection grade on the ground of service record.
7. We have gone through the material available on record which
shows that even there are certain penalties awarded to the
appellant earlier, but after grant of first selection grade in the year
2004, no material could be placed by the respondent to satisfy the
Labour Court, Writ Court or even this Court that his record from
2004 to 2013 was blemished. Therefore, to that extent, the order
of the Labour Court is sustained and finding in that regard
recorded by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is
accordingly, held entitled to second selection grade w.e.f. 2013. As
the appellant has given up the claim of third selection grade,
award to that extent is also liable to be interfered with.
8. The award of the Labour Court is upheld only to the extent
that the appellant is entitled to second selection grade w.e.f.
2013. The award of the Labour Court to the extent it grants first
selection scale from due date after completion of nine years from
1995 and grant of third selection grade is set aside.
9. The order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it rejects
the claim of grant of second selection grade from 2013 is set
aside.
10. In the result, it is declared that appellant is entitled to
second selection grade w.e.f. 2013 but not the first selection grade
prior to 2004, nor the third selection grade.
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:55:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:9961-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-164/2024]
11. The appeal is accordingly, partly allowed in the manner and
to the extent stated above.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
N.Gandhi/89
(Downloaded on 10/03/2025 at 09:55:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)