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
[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.
[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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
