Partly allowed

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbohkta Sangh Limited v. Tajammul Khan S/O Jaleel Khan

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2020SAW/950/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined an intra-court appeal termed barred by limitation. Finding the delay explanation implausible but acting in the interest of justice, it refused to interfere with the Single Judge's stay refusal but modified the order mandating the appellant to pay the interim amount awarded by the Labour Court subject to the petition's outcome.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order quondam denying interim stays shall stand modified to direct the appellant to pay the amount awarded by the Labour Court to the respondent, pending the decision of the writ petition

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbohkta Sangh Limited Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 950/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15409/2016

¶5

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbohkta Sangh Limited, Through Its Managing Director, 237, Second Floor, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Tajammul Khan S/o Jaleel Khan, R/o A-172, Bhatta Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhrigu Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

05/02/2020

¶14

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the stay application preferred by the appellant.

¶15

The appeal reported to be barred by limitation for 82 days, is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶16

The explanation furnished for delay in filing the appeal is not found to be plausible and acceptable. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits.

¶17

It is noticed that by way of filing the writ petition, the appellant has assailed the illegality of award dated 20.01.2016

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[SAW-950/2019]

¶20

passed by the Labour Court-First, Jaipur, whereby, the claim of the respondent for payment of amount of earned leave of 300 days, has been allowed.

¶21

We do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant any interim relief, as prayed for.

¶22

However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellant may make payment of the amount payable to the respondent in terms of the award subject to decision of the writ petition. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand modified accordingly.

¶23

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the learned Single Judge may be requested to decide the petition expeditiously.

¶25

It is always open for counsel for the parties to make the prayer in this regard before the learned Single Judge.

¶26

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶27

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶28

Sudha/37

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbohkta Sangh Limited v. Tajammul Khan S/O Jaleel Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbohkta Sangh Limited v. Tajammul Khan S/O Jaleel Khan

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

Manohar Lal Sharma S/O Shri Kailash Prasad Sharma Vs Shri D.C. Samant Chief Secretary Govt. of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Manvendra Singh S/O Shri Pradeep Singh, B/C Rajput

The State of Rajasthan Vs Manish Kumar Dube S/O Shri Hari Shankar Dube

C I T Alwar Vs M/S Mount Shivlik Ltd.

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Sanjay Kumar S/O Sh. Ramesh Chand

The General Manager (Adm), Vs Sh Rameshwar Prasad S/O Sh. Badrinaarain, Ex Driver