Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1799 (RAJ)

CEMENT LTD v. BANGAR CEMENT WORKS UNION

2017-08-10

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6/3/2013 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran District Pali, whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC has been rejected. 2. The application was filed by the appellant alleging disobedience of order dated 4/6/2009 passed by the appellate court after the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was rejected by the trial court on 30/5/2009. The appellate court had ordered that within 200 mtrs. radius of the main gate of factory no agitation or sit-in would be held. It was alleged that on 20/6/2009, the respondents stopped the employees from joining the duty, obstructed the way and raised solgans and indulged in sit-in etc., which amounted to violation of the interim order and, therefore, the respondents were liable to be punished. The application was contested by the respondents by filing reply. It was submitted that the application has been filed only with a view to pressurize the respondents and there is no substance in the application. 3. Evidence was led by the appellant, no evidence was led by the respondents. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that none of the photographs were exhibited, the face of none of the persons in photograph was clear and the evidence was not admissible. The court also came to the conclusion that the alleged disobedience was not continuing and based on the said consideration, rejected the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that evidence was led by the appellant in support of the application regarding disobedience, no evidence was led by the respondents and, therefore, there was no reason for the trial court to reject the application and, therefore, the order requires interference. 6. Further submissions were made that merely because disobedience was not continuing cannot be a reason for rejecting the application once the disobedience was proved and, therefore, the order deserves to be interfered with. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 8. 6. Further submissions were made that merely because disobedience was not continuing cannot be a reason for rejecting the application once the disobedience was proved and, therefore, the order deserves to be interfered with. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 8. It would be seen that the application was filed under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC in the year 2009, the same was decided on 6/3/2013, the present appeal was filed on 30/5/2013, office has pointed out minor defects on 18/6/2013, however, the defects were not removed for over a period of about four years and, thereafter, on 24/3/2017 peremptory order was passed for removal of defects failing which it was directed that appeal would stand dismissed, thereafter, defects were removed and now after seeking adjournment on 12/7/2017, when the appeal came up for admission today the matter was argued i.e. over four years after the order dated 6/3/2013 was passed. 9. The allegations pertain to alleged disobedience by the respondents regarding the order dated 4/6/2009 passed by the appellate court. The trial court came to the conclusion after analyzing the evidence led by the appellant that the same was not admissible, observed that the alleged disobedience was not continuing and, therefore, rejected the application. 10. The order passed by the trial court, in the circumstances of the case as noticed hereinbefore, wherein, the proceedings for alleged disobedience were/are conducted at leisure, cannot be faulted so as to require interference in the present appeal. 11. In view of the above, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.