[2023/RJJP/000544]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1345/2015
Ramesh Chand Jatav S/o Shri Gulbi Jatav, R/o Khandeep, Post
And Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Public Health Works Department,
Karauli.
2. Assistant Engineer, Public Health Works Department,
Division-Ii, Shreemahaveerji, District Karauli.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
25/01/2023
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition and -
(I) By an appropriate writ, order and direction the impugned order dated 16.07.2014 passed by labour court, bharatpur may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of issue No.1 whereby the reference dismissed against the petitioner on account of delay.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order and direction the petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits with continuity of service.
(iii) Any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fair and proper in the facts and (Downloaded on 01/02/2023 at 11:57:12 PM) [2023/RJJP/000544] (2 of 4) [CW-1345/2015] circumstances of the present writ petition be also passed in favour of the humble petitioner and against the respondents."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent - Department in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), hence he raised the industrial dispute and approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievances. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned award the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination order of the petitioner was invalid as the services of the petitioner was terminated without following the procedure. Counsel submits that even after recording such finding, the Labour Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the issue has been raised after a lapse of more than 15 years. Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied only on the ground of delay. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gopal Lal Parashar vs. The Presiding Officer (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.175/2003) decided on 14.02.2017. Counsel submits that under these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was sleeping over his rights for more than 15 years and after a delay of more than 15 years, claim has been filed which was rightly denied by the Labour Court by rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. (Downloaded on 01/02/2023 at 11:57:12 PM) [2023/RJJP/000544] (3 of 4) [CW-1345/2015] In support of his contentions, he has place reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and anr. Reported in 2015 (15) SCC 1. In addition, he has also place reliance on a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, National Highway Public Works Department, Tonk and anr. vs. Madan Lal Gurjar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.550/2017). Counsel submits that the said judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Lal Gurjar vs. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Public Works Department, Tonk and anr (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1425/2017). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
This fact is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Department. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner slept over his rights and kept mum for a considerable long time and after a lapse of more than 15 years, he raised the industrial dispute and thereafter, the reference was made and a statement of claim was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court.
After hearing and considering the material put by the respective parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination order of the petitioner was bad for the reason that the procedure contained in provisions of Industrial Disputes Act was no followed. The Labour Court rejected the claim petition of (Downloaded on 01/02/2023 at 11:57:12 PM) [2023/RJJP/000544] (4 of 4) [CW-1345/2015] the petitioner on a technical count that the same has been filed after a lapse of 15 years. The Labour Court has not passed a reasoned and detailed order before rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Neither any provision of law nor any judgment has been considered.
Looking to the judgments referred by the respective parties in the case of Gopal Lal Parashar (supra), Prabhakar (supra) and Madan Lal Gurjar (supra), the case is remitted back to the Labour Court to pass a fresh award after considering the arguments raised by the respective parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of and the impugned order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur is quashed and set aside.
Stay application and all applications, pending if any, also disposed of.
The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 13.02.2023.
However, it is made clear that while deciding this petition, anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the case. It is further made clear that the observations made while deciding this petition are simply arguments advanced by the counsel for both parties and the same shall not, in any, way affect the learned Judge, Labour Court in forming his independent opinion based on the evidence and documents available on the record.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/11 (Downloaded on 01/02/2023 at 11:57:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)