Rajkumar Purohit vs The Director, Raj. Patarika Pvt. Ltd. ...

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajkumar Purohit vs The Director, Raj. Patarika Pvt. Ltd. ... on 28 May, 2024

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2024:RJ-JD:24364]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16783/2019

Rajkumar Purohit S/o Late Lal Chand Purohit, Aged About 60
Years, Near Chela Maharaj Ki Dukan, Netaji Ki Gali, Binnani
Chowk, Bikaner.
                                                       ----Petitioner
                              Versus
1.     The Director, Raj. Patarika Pvt. Ltd., Keshargarh, Jaipur.
2.     The Assistant General Manager, Rajasthan Patrika Private
       Limited, Keshargarh, Jaipur.
3.     The Senior Manager, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited,
       147, Gandhi Nagar, Mandiya Road, Pali Marwar.
4.     The Judge, Industrial Dispute Tribunal And Labour Court,
       Jodhpur.
                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)           :     Dr. Harish Kumar Purohit and
                                  Ms. Vrinda Bhardwaj


              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order 28/05/2024

1. The present petition has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20.11.2014 passed by Industrial Dispute Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Dispute Case No.64/2011 whereby qua the reference as made by the State Government, the learned Labour Court passed a 'No Dispute Award'.

2. The learned Labour Court passed the said award on the premise that despite service, neither the petitioner appeared nor did he file any claim petition. Learned Labour Court hence, concluded that the petitioner-workman was not interested in pursuing the said litigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, no notice/information whatsoever either of the reference been made (Downloaded on 29/05/2024 at 08:54:31 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24364] (2 of 3) [CW-16783/2019] by the State Government or by the learned Labour Court was ever served/received on/by him. As is clear from the award dated 20.11.2014 itself, the notice as sent on the address of the workman was returned with the report that the addressee does not reside on the said address. Meaning thereby, the notice was never served on the petitioner-workman.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the impugned award having been passed, even the notification has been published in the Gazette and hence, the petitioner may prefer a restoration application before the learned Labour Court, if he desires so.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The order-sheets (Annex.7) of the learned Labour Court as annexed alongwith the writ petition reflect that notices to both the parties were issued on 11.07.2011/05.08.2011. On the next date i.e. 27.09.2011, counsel appeared on behalf of the non-applicant but the notice of the applicant-petitioner did not return till that date. Hence, fresh notice was directed to be issued to him. On 28.11.2011, it was observed that the notice has not returned and hence, notice through registered A.D. was directed to be issued. However, a perusal of the complete order-sheets does not reflect that the said notice to be served through registered A.D. was ever issued. All the subsequent order-sheets reflect that the notice of the petitioner was never returned. On the subsequent dates, directions to issue fresh notice were again given. But as observed above, no fresh notice seems to have been issued to the petitioner ever.

(Downloaded on 29/05/2024 at 08:54:31 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:24364] (3 of 3) [CW-16783/2019] Since 2011, for more than three years, proceedings went on for service on the petitioner-workman. Interestingly, on 20.11.2014, the Court observed that the petitioner has not appeared despite service and neither any claim has been filed on his behalf and hence, proceeded on to pass a 'No Dispute Award'.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the said finding of learned Labour Court is not in consonance with the material available on record. There is not a single order-sheet which reflects the issuance of the notice to the petitioner or return of the notice as sent to the petitioner or to reflect that the notice was ever served on him. Therefore, the finding of learned Labour Court regarding non-appearance of the workman despite service is erroneous on the face of it.

8. In view of the same, the award dated 20.11.2014 deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence, notification dated 16.06.2015 (Annex.5) is also set aside. The matter is remanded back to learned Labour Court to decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-workman.

9. The learned Labour Court shall not be required to issue any fresh notices. Both the parties shall remain present before the Labour Court on 05.07.2024. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear on the said date, the learned Labour Court would be at liberty to pass fresh orders.

10. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 43-T.Singh/-

(Downloaded on 29/05/2024 at 08:54:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)