Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1412 (RAJ)

Sawaidan v. Industrial And Labour Court, Jodhpur

2019-05-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the award dated 9/5/2017 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the claim made by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. On a dispute being raised, the appropriate Government by its reference dated 29/12/2008, referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Jodhpur: 3. In the Statement of Claim, the petitioner workman claimed that he was engaged as Cattle Guard on daily wages basis @ Rs. 9/- per day initially which was enhanced to Rs. 14/- per day w.e.f. 6/1/1985. It was claimed that without following the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act, 1947') the services of the petitioner were dispensed with orally on 3/3/1987. 4. The Statement of Claim was contested by the respondents by filing reply. It was indicated that there was no reason for raising dispute after 19 long years and, therefore, the workman was not entitled to any relief. 5. The workman filed his affidavit and was cross examined, however no document was filed, the respondents filed copy of muster roll (Ex.A/1). 6. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court came to the following conclusion and inter alia passed the following award: 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions seeking to question the validity of the award. It was submitted that merely on account of delay the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 8. Further submission was made that from the material on record it was apparent that the workmen named in the Statement of Claim were working as regular employees with the respondent department and, therefore, rejection of the claim by the Labour Court, in the circumstances of the case, was not justified. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the reference made by the appropriate Government, quoted hereinbefore, reveals that reference itself indicated as to whether raising of dispute after 19 years was justified. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the reference made by the appropriate Government, quoted hereinbefore, reveals that reference itself indicated as to whether raising of dispute after 19 years was justified. Nothing was indicated by the petitioner in the Statement of Claim (Annex.1) seeking to justify the delay in raising the dispute and in those circumstances, once the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the delay of 19 years and that available record as produced by the respondents did not support the claim of the petitioner pertaining to his having completed 240 days in a year and/or the fact of termination of his services as claimed, the Labour Court was fully justified in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner, which determination made by the Labour Court does not call for any interference. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Labour Court with reference to material on record and, therefore, also no case for interference on any ground is made out. 12. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.