Dismissed

Murari Lal v. the Labour Court and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 May 2012CW/18332/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a Labour Court award for retrenchment, claiming he completed 240 days of service. The Court found he worked less than 240 days and that a document produced to support his claim listed a different father's name. Relying on supervisory jurisdiction limits, the Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with imposition of costs of Rs. 2,000 on the petitioner.

Murari Lal Vs the Labour Court and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18332/2011 Murari Lal Versus

¶4

The Labour Court, No.2, Jaipur and others

¶5

Date of Order :: 1.5.2012

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶7

Mr.Ramesh Kumawat for petitioner.

¶8

<><><>

¶9

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the award of the labour Court. It is precisely on the ground that petitioner had completed 240 days prior to his retrenchment and evidence for that purpose was led by the petitioner. The labour Court, however, failed to appreciate the evidence led by the petitioner more specifically when evidence in rebuttal was not led. It is, accordingly, prayed that the award of the labour Court may be set aside.

¶10

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record carefully.

¶11

On perusal of the record, I find that petitioner has not completed 240 days of service before the retrenchment. No material was produced regarding petitioner's working from June 1994 to September 1994. The working of the petitioner was found from the month of October 1994 till April 1995, which comes to less than 240 days inasmuch as even if, all the days are taken into consideration, then it comes 180 days or so.

¶12

Learned counsel made a reference of Annexure-8 to indicate that in the month of September 1994,

¶13

¶14

petitioner had worked with the respondents as his name appeared at S.No.3.

¶15

I have considered the aforesaid and find that petitioner - Murari Lal's father name is Pratap Singh whereas in Annexure-8, father's name is shown to be 'Roop Chand'. The petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by same name of candidate.

¶16

The learned counsel orally submitted that father's name of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned as 'Roop Chand' in the said document.

¶17

I find that there is no mention about this fact in the impugned award so as the writ petition, rather petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by producing a document not concerned to him inasmuch as his father's name is Pratap Singh whereas person employed in the month of September was Murari Lal S/o Roop Chand. Looking to the finding of fact and limited jurisdiction of this Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned award more so muster roll from the month of June till September 1994 has not been produced herein to indicate petitioner's working during that period. The judgment in the case of Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 is relevant and it would be gainful to quote paras 7 & 8 of the aforesaid judgment. Para 7 & 8 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

¶18

“7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much

¶19

¶20

less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that since the insurer has a remedy by filing an appeal before the High Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and for that reason, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it would be open to the insurer file an appeal if it is permissible under the law.”

¶22

Looking to the discussion made above and the finding of fact recorded by the labour Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned award since a misleading document has been filed along with the writ petition at Annexure-8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Service Authority. This disposes of stay application also.

¶23

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶24

Item No.4 Sunil/PA

¶25

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶26

(Sunil Solanki) P.A.

Murari Lal v. the Labour Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Lal v. the Labour Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmchand Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State Education Departmentors

Mahendra Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Usha Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mubarik Ali Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.