Dismissed

Deva Ram v. Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2014CW/3205/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The Labour Court found the petitioner failed to prove employment from March 1991 to January 1993 and thus was not entitled to Chapter V-A protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court held that evidence supported the Labour Court's finding and refused interference under Article 227.

What the court decided

AI extract

Deva Ram Vs Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3205/2000

¶4

Deva Ram V/s.

¶5

The Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur & Anr

Date of Order

::: 08.01.2014

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶10

Mr. S.K.M. Vyas for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for the respondentState.

¶11

By the instant writ petition, the petitionerworkman has challenged the impugned award dated 21^st May, 1999 (Annex.11) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. The learned Labour Court on adjudication of reference made by the appropriate Government has found that the petitioner-workman has failed to prove his employment from March 1991 to January 1993. With this finding, the learned Labour Court has found that the petitioner-workman is not entitled for protection of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short, 'Act of 1947').

¶12

On perusal of the impugned award, it is amply clear that although the petitioner made endeavour to requisition the relevant record from March 1991 to January

¶13

¶14

1993, but on behalf of the respondents record of two months i.e., April and May 1992 was produced. In fact, the stand of the respondents was clear that the petitioner has worked for these two months and that too for a short duration of 26 days only. From the evidence tendered by the petitioner, nothing turned out to his advantage to show that he has worked for the interregnum period from March 1991 to January 1993. As a mater of fact, while crossexamining the witness of the respondent, Padam Singh Rathore, Assistant Conservator of Forest, no specific question is being put to him by the petitioner-workman to elicit his answer about the duration of employment. The entire cross-examination hovers around two months i.e., April and May 1992 only. Even no suggestive question was put to the witnesses for ascertaining the fact that whether the petitioner has worked for interregnum period as alleged by him in the statement of claim.

¶15

In this view of the matter, although the requisite record was not produced by the respondents despite order of the learned Labour Court, but as such from the evidence available on record it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner during the trial due to nonproduction of record. The learned Labour Court has thus, rightly decided the reference and answered the same against the petitioner-workman. The finding of fact recorded

¶16

¶17

by the learned Court below on appreciation of evidence and other materials which were available on record, therefore, cannot be faulted. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not akin to that of an appellate Court and the same is to be exercised sparingly.

¶18

In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned award. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

(P.K. LOHRA), J.

¶20

a.asopa/-

Deva Ram v. Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Deva Ram v. Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Umed Singh Vs State and Ors.

Principal, Doongar College, Bikaner Vs Narpat Singh and Anr.

Gauri Lal Dayama Vs Bhilwara-Ajmer Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Kalyan Singh Vs Judge, Labour Court,Jodhpur and Ors.