Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 396 (RAJ)

Banshi Lal v. Judge Labour Court No. 1

2015-02-11

AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Instant intra court appeal has been preferred against order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 26.10.2012. 2. It is really a sorry state of affairs that to whom protection has been provided under the Act of 1947 & who is not in equal bargaining position to compete with the employer and with his meagre means available at his disposal, still not being permitted & provided reasonable opportunity to lead evidence in support of his claim, certainly that deprives him of his fair right in ventilating his grievance. 3. Brief facts of the case as alleged are that the appellant-workman had worked on daily wages from 13.03.1986-01.09.1989 which is open to verification by the parties who are permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective claim and the reference was made by the State Government pursuant to which claim was filed by the workman and written statement was filed by the employer and the first available opportunity to the workmen for recording his evidence in his defence was on 24.11.2003 and on four occasions i.e. 20.01.2004, 07.04.2004 & 20.07.2004 & 26.10.2004, the matter was adjourned because of the reason that the Presiding Officer was either on leave or transferred elsewhere and no effective proceedings could take place. However, on 10.01.2005 the workman was unable to submit his affidavit in the form of examination-in-chief and on the next date when the matter came up before the Ld. Labour Court on 14.03.2005 the defence of the workman was struck off by the Ld. Labour Court, against which writ petition came to be preferred at the instance of the workman and the ld. Single Judge under order impugned dated 26.10.2012, was not inclined to grant indulgence in affording opportunity to submit defence in support of his claim. 4. However, what is reflected from the order of the ld. Single Judge is the dates on which the Presiding Officer was either transferred or on leave and also taken note of in holding that the opportunity was afforded to the workman and that appears to be a reason for which the ld. Single Judge claim, he is not entitled for any indulgence and that persuaded the ld. Single Judge not to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction Article 227 of the Constitution under order impugned dated 26.10.2012. We have heard counsel for the parties & also perused the material on record. Single Judge claim, he is not entitled for any indulgence and that persuaded the ld. Single Judge not to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction Article 227 of the Constitution under order impugned dated 26.10.2012. We have heard counsel for the parties & also perused the material on record. From the order of the ld. Single Judge we find that the first opportunity was afforded to the workman to lead evidence in support of his claim was on 24.11.2003 and it could be noticed that at least for a year, the matter was adjourned because of the Presiding Officer was either on leave or transferred and in our considered view, reasonable opportunity to the workman of his defence in support of his claim has not been afforded to him and.the Ld. Labour Court has committed error while striking off his defence under order impugned dated 14.03.2005 and the application which he moved thereafter for setting aside the order also came to be dismissed on 12.10.2009 without assigning reason. 5. The ld. Single Judge also took note of the date on which the matter was listed but adjourned because of non-availability of the Presiding Officer who was either transferred or on leave and that being so those dates on which no effective proceedings could take place that may not be taken note of denying fair opportunity to the workman. In our considered view, the Ld. Labour Court committed an error while passing order impugned dated 14.03.2005 & 12.10.2009 & also the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 26.10.2012 is not sustainable in law and the workman's deserves indulgence to submit his defence in support of his claim. Consequently, the appeal succeeds & is hereby allowed. The order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 26.10.2012 & also of the Labour Court dated 14.03.2005 & 12.10.2009 stands quashed & set aside. 6. It is informed to this Court that the matter is listed before the Ld. Labour Court on 26.03.2015. 7. Let the workman may submit his affidavit in the form of examination-in-chief on or before the date of hearing fixed before the ld. Labour Court and the respondents are at liberty to cross examine the workman and are at liberty to submit their defence as well. 8. Being old matter, it is expected from the Presiding Officer to expedite the matter in accordance With law.