Dismissed

State and Anr. v. Shri Jaidev and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2018SAW/751/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal against a labour court award. It dismissed the appeal, holding that the Single Judge correctly refused a stay on reinstatement because the appellant failed to prove a contract between the Forest Department and the Society engaging the workman.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the award directing reinstatement was upheld.

State and Anr. Vs Shri Jaidev and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 751/2018

¶4

The State Of Rajasthan through the Deputy Conservator Of Forest, District Pali Raj.

¶5

Regional Forest Officer, Range Siyat, Post Siyat, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri. Jaidev S/o Shri Mishrilal Sargara through Shri Manroopram Parmar, Zila Vidhi Mantri, Akhil Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, House No. SS 288, Shivaji Nagar, District- Pali.

¶9

The Industrial Disputes Tribunal And Labour Court, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Mali, Mr. JVS Deora

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

04/09/2018

¶15

Civil Misc. Application No.425/2018:

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

Special Appeal (Writ) No.751/2018:

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The appellant has suffered an award against it on 26.05.2016 which has been challenged by way of a writ petition

¶20

before the learned Single Judge.

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[SAW-751/2018]

¶23

Case of the workman before the Labour Court was that by a verbal order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Regional Forest Officer he was appointed as a Cattle Guard at a monthly wage of ₹1800/- and his services were terminated after he had rendered more than 240 days service without complying with Section 25F of the I.D. Act.

¶24

Case of the appellant pleaded was that the work of plantation and gardening and protection against stray cattle was assigned to a Society and for work done by the Society money was released to the Society and that the workman was engaged by the Society.

¶25

It is not the case of the appellant that the workman was appointed on a contract through the Society. 6. A perusal of the award shows that no evidence was led by the appellant to prove the contract between the Forest Department and the Society.

¶26

Challenge in the appeal is to an interim order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge admitting the writ petition filed by the appellant staying back wages granted to the workman. Meaning thereby, the award has not been stayed insofar it directs reinstatement.

¶27

In view of the fact that prima facie the appellant has not made good defense before the labour court by proving a contract between the appellant and the Society we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised the discretion by declining stay against the reinstatement.

¶28

The appeal is dismissed.

¶29

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶30

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶31

Mohit Tak

State and Anr. v. Shri Jaidev and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Anr. v. Shri Jaidev and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vimla and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Jyoti Dhariwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishna Automobile Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Vs Nirmal Kumar Vishnoi

Union of India and Anr. Vs Sunil Kumar and Ors.

Yogesh Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.