Allowed

Lalit Jain S/O Shri Sujan Mal Jain v. Managing Director

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2018SAW/1561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench allowed appeals challenging a Single Judge's dismissal of writ petitions. The core issue was the Labour Court's alleged error in admitting management documents after excluding workmen documents. The Court held that industrial fora follow summary procedure, not CPC, and allowable late submissions if requests are made with an undertaking to produce witnesses within a prescribed timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed with direction to Labour Court to grant one opportunity for reasonable time to produce evidence subject to undertaking to produce witnesses within prescribed time.

Lalit Jain S/O Shri Sujan Mal Jain Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1) D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1557/2018

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13576/2018

¶5

Devendra Garg son of Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, 39, Veyankateshwar Colony, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur

¶6

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Kesargarh, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

With

¶11

(2) D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1561/2018

¶12

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9782/2018

¶14

Lalit Jain son of Shri Sujan Mal Jain, 177-1, Block, Behind Kanda House, Hiran Magri, Sector 14, Udaipur

¶15

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Kesargarh, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

With

¶20

(3) D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1563/2018

¶21

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12135/2018

¶23

Devesh Pant son of Shri N.R. Pant, Pant Bhawan, Jobner Bagh, Station Road, Jaipur

¶24

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Kesargarh, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶27

----Respondent

¶28

With

¶29

(4) D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1565/2018

[SAW-1557/2018]

(2 of 5)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14617/2018

¶34

Laxman Singh son of Shri Jorawar Singh, 44-A, Kali Kothi, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur

¶35

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Kesargarh, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶38

----Respondent

¶39

With

¶40

(5) D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1586/2018

¶41

¶42

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9781/2018

¶43

Rajendra Dhabai son of Shri Bajrang Lal, Sindhi Colony, C.T.S. Bus Stand, Sanganer, District Jaipur

¶44

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶45

Versus

¶46

Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Kesargarh, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶47

----Respondent

¶48

With

¶49

(6) D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1587/2018

¶50

¶51

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9787/2018

¶52

Shri Mukesh Sharma son of Shri Jaikishan Sharma resident of 478, Hanumanji Ka Rasta, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur

¶53

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶54

Versus

¶55

Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Kesargarh, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶56

----Respondent

¶57

With

¶58

(7) D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1588/2018

¶59

¶60

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9780/2018

¶61

Bhanwar Singh Dhayal son of Shri Bhagwan Ram, Pilion Ka Thahar, Gram Post Tarapur, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶62

[SAW-1557/2018]

¶63

(3 of 5)

¶64

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶65

Versus

¶66

Managing Director, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Kesargarh, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶67

----Respondent

¶68

For Appellant(s)

¶69

: Mr. Dharmendra Jain and Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora.

¶70

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶71

Judgment

¶72

06/12/2018

¶73

Since all these appeals arise out of common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶74

These appeals are directed against judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed.

¶75

The appellants challenged the order passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur (for short ‘the Labour Court’) on the ground that while at an earlier stage, the Labour Court had disallowed the documents in question which were filed by the workmen but at subsequent stage, similar documents filed by the management have been allowed to be taken on record. It is submitted that the documents which have come into existence subsequent to the date of termination and the date of reference can have no relevance. The Labour Court has erred in law in taking such documents on record.

¶76

[SAW-1557/2018]

¶77

(4 of 5)

¶78

Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge indicates that the Labour Court has observed in its order that the appellants would be entitled to make their submissions with regard to relevance of the documents at the time of final arguments. Moreover, if the Labour Court has taken the documents on record, the appellants are always at liberty to question the relevance of those documents at the time of final arguments and also apply for placing the documents in rebuttal thereof. Proceedings before the Labour Court are not conducted as that of a full-fledged civil court. Industrial fora are required to answer the reference by applying summary procedure where the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applied.

¶79

Learned counsel for the appellants at this stage submitted that on account of present litigation, the Labour Court has closed evidence of the workmen in Special Appeal No. 1557/2018 and 1565/2018 and evidence of the management has also been closed in Special Appeal No. 1563/2018 and 1588/2018. Learned Single Judge in this case has taken note of the fact the Supreme Court in these matters directed the Labour Court to decide the matters expeditiously and therefore if the workmen as also the management failed to produce their evidence in time, the Labour Court has passed such orders. Even then, the aggrieved party can make appropriate application along with the documents which it seeks to rely on the undertaking to produce the witnesses within the short time period which the Labour Court prescribes for production of such witnesses for cross-examination. It will be

¶80

open for the Labour Court to consider the request of the concerned party for grant of one opportunity of reasonable time to

¶81

(5 of 5) [SAW-1557/2018]

¶82

them. If they still fail to produce the witnesses in that time frame, the Labour Court shall proceed to decide the matters in accordance with law without granting any further opportunity. Appeals are disposed of, however, with the aforesaid

¶83

directions.

¶84

All the pending stay applications are also disposed of. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on

¶85

record of each connected appeal.

¶86

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶87

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶88

Manoj/

Lalit Jain S/O Shri Sujan Mal Jain v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Jain S/O Shri Sujan Mal Jain v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

University of Rajasthan Vs Sri Balaji Shiksha Samiti and Ors.

Manny Lata Sharma Vs State Education Departmentors

Municiaoal Board Kishangarh Vs Chand Mal and Co. and Ors.

Kunj Bihari Agarwal S/O Shri Shivdayal Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Rukman Kabra Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar

Smt. Neelima Bhatnagar W/O Shri Devesh Bhatnagar Vs Naresh Pal Gangwar