Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 876 (RAJ)

Devilal v. Assistant Engineer, Sinchai Bheemsagar Project, Sub Division-I

2019-03-25

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2019
JUDGMENT : D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 336/2019: 1. There is a delay of one day in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application is allowed. D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 307/2019: 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Challenge in the appeal is to the order dated 03.12.2018 dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant. In the claim petition before the Labour Court the solitary case of the appellant was that Section 25F of the I.D. Act was not complied with when his services were terminated. 6. In the response it was stated that in compliance with Section 25F requisite amount was tendered to the appellant by cheque and he refused to accept the same. In view of the evidence led the Labour Court has returned a finding in favour of the Management. 7. Being a question of fact the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed noting that before the learned Single Judge the argument advanced was that the amount of retrenchment compensation tendered was less than what was required to be tendered. The learned Single Judge has noted that in the claim petition it was not the case of the appellant that the retrenchment compensation tendered was less. 8. Again Counsel for the appellant argues the same point. Since the retrenchment compensation being less was not a part of the claim petition before the Labour Court we agree with the learned Single Judge that the writ petition could not be filed on said ground. 9. Another ground urged in the appeal is that one month notice or pay in lieu thereof before retrenchment was not tendered. Learned counsel cites a decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1967 SC 1206 , M/s. National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 10. Suffice it to state that this point was not urged in the claim petition. It would be a matter of fact whether one month notice or salary in lieu thereof was tendered. In appeal for the first time said point cannot be urged. 11. The appeal is dismissed.