Dismissed

Rajasthan Khadi Gram Udhyog Board v. Shri Sitaram Sharma S/O Shri Nagarmal Sharma

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2021CW/4443/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Labour Court award in a dismission dispute. It held that the petitioner failed to assign reasons for the lack of records to remand the matter, and found the award lacked perversity or illegality justifying interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merit, denying the petitioner's request for remand.

Rajasthan Khadi Gram Udhyog Board Vs Shri Sitaram… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4443/2020

¶3

Rajasthan Khadi Gram Udhyog Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Sitaram Sharma S/o Shri Nagarmal Sharma, Mukam Post Malikpur, Via Sikar, District-Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Deputy Director Rajasthan Khadi Gram Udyog Board, Sikar.

¶9

District Development Officer, Dhod, Sikar. 4. Additional Administrative Secretary, Village And Panchayati Raj. Department, Sikar.

¶10

----Proforma/Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

09/12/2021

¶15

This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the award dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court No.2, Jaipur whereby the claim No.L.C.R-10/1999 filed by the respondent No.1/workman has partly been allowed.

¶16

The facts, as emerge from the record, are that the respondent-workman was appointed by the petitioner, Rajasthan Khadi Gram Udhyog Board (for brevity, “the Board”) on 17.05.1979 as Supervisor for a period of 6 months. His services were extended from time to time and ultimately he stood confirmed. Vide order dated 14.02.1996, his services were

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-4443/2020]

¶19

terminated whereupon, a reference was made to the learned Labour Court No.2, Jaipur under Section 10 (1) (c) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, “the Act of 1947”) which, has partly been allowed vide award dated 13.12.2019 directing the petitioner-Board to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation amount to the workman.

¶20

The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that services of the workman were terminated after conducting a regular departmental enquiry but, no document could be produced before the learned Labour Court and hence, the matter may be remanded back to the learned Labour Court with liberty to the petitioner to submit relevant documents.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶22

In view of the fact that no reason has been assigned by the petitioner which prevented it from producing the relevant document/record pertaining to departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent/workman before the learned Labour Court, the prayer made to remand back the matter for fresh consideration, cannot be accepted by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction.

¶23

Even otherwise also, as per the award dated 13.12.2019, vide order dated 20.09.2017, the departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Board was declared to be unfair by the learned Labour Court. Thereafter, neither any prayer was made before the learned Labour Court to lead the evidence nor, any evidence, as a matter of fact, was led. On the basis of material on record, learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that before terminating his services, the workman was not accorded a

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-4443/2020]

¶26

reasonable opportunity of defence. It was also found by the learned Labour Court that before terminating his services, the petitioner-Board has failed to establish that compliance of Section 25 of the Act of 1947 was made. This Court does not find the award dated 13.12.2019 to be suffering from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

¶28

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶29

PRAGATI/20

Rajasthan Khadi Gram Udhyog Board v. Shri Sitaram Sharma S/O Shri Nagarmal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan Khadi Gram Udhyog Board v. Shri Sitaram Sharma S/O Shri Nagarmal Sharma

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

Abdul Karim S/O Sh. Abdul Rashid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan Singh S/O Shri Guman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Moola Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sapana Meena Daughter of Shri Krishna Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Chanda Ram Siyag Son of Shri Kana Ram Siyag Vs Union of India

Bhawani Shankar S/O Sh. Hardan Singh Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation