Bhanwar Singh Son Of Bigha Ram vs Executive Engineer (2024:Rj-Jp:8155)
2024 Latest Caselaw 1185 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1185 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Bhanwar Singh Son Of Bigha Ram vs Executive Engineer (2024:Rj-Jp:8155) on 16 February, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:8155]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20689/2023

Bhanwar Singh Son Of Bigha Ram, Aged About 59 Years,
Resident Of Kiri Mohalla Holi Danda, Tehsil And District Dholpur
(Rajasthan).
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                            Versus
1.       Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Dholpur.
2.       Assistant       Engineer,           Irrigation     Sub      Division       Sepau,
         Dholpur.
3.       Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Badi First,
         Dholpur.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)               :        Mr. Pankaj Kumar for
                                         Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)               :



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                            Order

16/02/2024

1.    Present        petition       is    filed    challenging       the    order    dated

05.11.2020 passed by the Labour Court.

2.    Heard and considered.

3. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with

a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle

of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself

into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the

supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate

tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they

[2024:RJ-JP:8155] (2 of 3) [CW-20689/2023]

obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under

Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to

keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their

authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this regard

can be placed on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam

vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC

327. In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court only has to analyse

whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake

apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order

passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed

after consideration of the facts and material on record.

4. Relevant part of the impugned order dated 05.11.2020, is

reproduced as under:-

"15- ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ us dk;Z vof/k] dk;Z le; o LFkku rFkk etnwjh ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ lk{; vFkok nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;s gSA ;Fkk izkFkhZ Dyse ds leFkZu esa dksbZ izekf.kd lefFkZRk lk{; is'k djus esa vleFkZ jgk o Lo;a ds dFku fojks/kkHkklh gS] tks ekeys dh iqf"V ugha djrsA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu fnukad 04-01-1986 ls 31-12-1989 rd dk;Z djuk rFkk fnukad 01-01-1990 dks lsok lekIr djus dh ek= ekSf[kd lk{; nh gSA izkFkhZ us mDr rF;ksa dh iqf"V gsrq dksbZ nLrkost vfHkys[k ij is'k ugha fd;s gSA 17- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls rych izkFkkZuk i= fnukad 01-06-2017 is'k dj vizkFkhZx.k ls o"kZ 04-01-1986 ls 31-12-1989 rd dk fjdkMZ ryc djkus ckcr is'k fd;kA gkykafd izkFkhZ us izLrqr rych izkFkZuk i= esa ;g Li"V ugha fd;k fd og fdl dk;ZLFky dk fjdkMZ ryc djkuk pkgrk gSA tcfd izkFkhZ us lk{; 'kiFk i= fnukad 14-07-2016 dks is'k dj vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu esa dk;ZLFky ikoZrh eq[; ugj] vkaxbZ ck¡/k] fiijkSy dh iqfy;k] clsMh czkUp] mfeZyk lkxj ck¡/k] jkek lkxj ck¡/k] clsMh jsLV gkÅl] 320 ls 370 dh Qky ij ,oa izfrijh{kk fnukad 30-08-2016 dks jkelkxj] fufHk rky ,oa vkaxbZ ck¡/k ij dk;Z djuk crk;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk ;g nkf;Ro Fkk fd og fnukad 01-06-2017 dks izLrqr rych izkFkZuk esa mDr dk;ZLFkyksa dk mYys[k djrkA izkFkhZ dk mDr d`R; izkFkhZ ds dFkuksa dks uk dsoy lansfgr djrk gS] oju~ izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu fdlh Hkh dk;ZLFky ij dk;Z ugha djuk Li"V djrk gSA mDr izkFkZuik i= dks U;k;ky; }kjk vknsf'kdk fnukad 24-08-2017 dks Lohdkj dj vizkFkhZx.k dks izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ ,d o"kZ dh eLVjjksy] eLVjjksy b';q jftLVj ,oa Hkqxrku o okmplZ is'k djus ds vkns'k fn, x,A

[2024:RJ-JP:8155] (3 of 3) [CW-20689/2023]

fjdkMZ ds ckjs esa izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fy;s tkus gsrq ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk U;kf;d n`"VkUr M. Yellatti vs. Assistant Executive Engineer (AIR 2006 SC 355) ;FkksDr dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ us uk rks dk;ZLFky dk Li"V o.kZu] LFkku] fnol lkfcr fd;k gSA izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu dk;Z duk lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa U;k;ky; ds le{k mi/kkj.kk ysus dh dksbZ fof/klEer ifjfLFkfr ugha gSA "

5. Upon a perusal of the record, it is noted that the initial and

primary onus to show that the petitioner hand rendered his

services for a period of 240 days was on the petitioner himself.

However, the claim of the petitioner in this regard was vague and

without any evidence in support thereof. No document was

exhibited either for establishing the tenure of the petitioner.

6. In the opinion of this Court, the learned labour court has

passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of

material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in

complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the labour

court. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no

palpable error has crept in the order of the learned trial court,