Shivji vs Executive Engineer P H E D Ors ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 826 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000544]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1342/2015
Shivji S/o Shri Kadu, 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. GC


         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 19.08.2014 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 circumstances of the present writ petition be also

[2023/RJJP/000544] (2 of 4) [CW-1342/2015]

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 25 F 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.

In support of his contentions, he has place reliance on the

[2023/RJJP/000544] (3 of 4) [CW-1342/2015]

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 not followed. The Labour Court rejected the claim petition of

the petitioner on a technical count that the same has been filed

[2023/RJJP/000544] (4 of 4) [CW-1342/2015]

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 19.08.2014 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/13

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)