Smt. Jeevani And Ors vs The Judge Industrial Tribunal And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18430 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1966/2016

Smt. Jeevani And Ors.

----Petitioner Versus The Judge Industrial Tribunal And Ors.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Ravindra Singh
For Respondent(s)        :



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

03/12/2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the

award dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners raised

industrial dispute through President, Mahi Employees Union

alleging that they had worked with the respondents from

01.01.1980 to 31.12.1988 continuously i.e. for a period of nine

years but their services have been retrenched without giving them

any notice or compensation. It was claimed that the respondents

have not complied with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 while retrenching the services of the petitioners.

Conciliation proceedings were failed and the State

Government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Udaipur.

The terms of the reference was that "whether the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioners after 17 years is justified and if

yes, then whether the action of the respondents of retrenching

services of the petitioners on 01.01.1989 is legal or not".

(2 of 3) [CW-1966/2016]

The Labour Court, Udaipur having considered the evidence

adduced by the parties concerned has answered the reference that

the action of the petitioners of raising the industrial dispute after

17 years is not justified and has also held that the petitioners have

failed to prove that their services were terminated on 01.01.1989.

I gone through the award passed by the Labour Court,

Udaipur, wherein it is held that the industrial dispute was raised by

the petitioners after 17 years and no reason has been supplied for

raising the dispute after a delay of 17 years. The Labour Court,

Udaipur has also observed that out of the 17 petitioners, 2

petitioners have not filed affidavits in support of their claim,

whereas 4 petitioners though have filed their affidavits but they

have not appeared for cross examination. It is also observed that

11 petitioners have appeared for cross examination, however,

none of them has been able to prove that they had worked from

01.01.1980 to 31.12.1988 and their services were terminated on

01.01.1989. The Labour Court, Udaipur has scrutinized the

evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners and held that some

of the petitioners have stated that they started work in the year

1981 and continued upto 1984, whereas some of them have

stated that they worked from 1978 to 1986. The Labour Court,

Udaipur has recorded a specific finding that the petitioners have

failed to prove that their services have been terminated on

01.01.1989.

It is to be noticed that the impugned award was passed on

24.09.2012, whereas the instant writ petition challenging the

same is filed on 17.12.2016. On several occasions, this writ

petition was listed before the Court, but no one has appeared on

behalf of the petitioners and ultimately the writ petition was

(3 of 3) [CW-1966/2016]

dismissed for non prosecution on 20.07.2016. Thereafter, again

the writ petition was restored by the order of this Court dated

09.11.2021 only.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners have raised industrial

dispute after a delay of 17 years and even this writ petition is also

filed after 4 years of passing of impugned award. As none has

appeared on behalf of petitioners, this petition was dismissed for

non-prosecution in the year 2016 and restored only in the last

month and argued for the first time today.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the

case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award passed by

the Labour Court, Udaipur as it has rightly answered the reference

in negative because there was an inordinate and unexplained

delay in filing the industrial disputes by the petitioners.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not

find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby

dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

1-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)