Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 94 (RAJ)

Vikas Adhikari P. S. Rajgarh v. Vinay Singh

2003-01-23

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Vikas Adhikarl Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh District Alwar in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the award dated July 21, 2000 passed by Labour Court Bharatpur camp Alwar whereby the reference made to it was answered in favour of the workman and it was held that the termination of workman from the services with effect from May 3, 1992 was illegal and as the workman had died on September 4, 1999, therefore his widow Smt. Santosh Devi was entitled to the wages with all consequential benefits from May 3, 1992 till September 4, 1999. 2. I have heard Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Manoj Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator Smt. Santosh Devi and scanned the material on record. 3. From the perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner had filed the Vakalat-Nama before the learned Labour Court on December 19, 1998, but thereafter nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Labour Court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and passed the impugned award on July 21, 2000. This award has been challenged by filing the instant writ petition on January 9, 2003. 4. Learned counsel for the caveator has placed before me the photo copy of the judgment dated November 29, 2002 passed by payment of Wages Authority, Alwar, whereby the application filed under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by Smt. Santosh Devi was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the wages to Smt. Santosh Devi from May 3, 1992 to September 4, 1999, pursuant to the award dated July 21, 2000 of learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. 5. A look at the judgment dated November 29, 2002 demonstrates that the petitioner hotly contested the said application. Notices of the said application were received by the petitioner and the reply submitted on April 20, 2002. Before the payment of Wages Authority, the petitioner examined Mr.Jitendra Singh, who deposed before the Payment of Wages Authority that the application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed after seven months of the publication of award. The said application was pending before the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. 6. Before the payment of Wages Authority, the petitioner examined Mr.Jitendra Singh, who deposed before the Payment of Wages Authority that the application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed after seven months of the publication of award. The said application was pending before the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. 6. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact that any application for setting aside the ex-parte award dated July 21, 2000 was filed before the learned Labour Court and that the Payment of Wages Authority, pursuant to the impugned award directed.the petitioner vide judgment dated November 29, 2002 to comply with the award. Reasons for filing the writ petition after the delay of two years and eight months, have also not been explained by the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid concealment, which goes to the root of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of every party to come with clean hands and to state all facts with clarity and . out ambiguity, but the petitioner in the instant writ petition has not come/With clean hands before this court. 8. In view of what I have discussed herein above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and it stands dismissed summarily. The petitioner is dire, ed to comply with the award within thirty days from today.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******