Dismissed

Bhairu Lal Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal v. Assistant Engineer, Sawan Bhado Pariyojna

Rajasthan HC26 Sept 2023CW/2755/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court's award that rejected a claim for termination compensation. The court held that the Labour Court was justified in finding against the petitioners as they failed to adduce adequate evidence to prove working for more than 240 days.

What did the court decide?

Costs not mentioned; stay application disposed of.

Bhairu Lal Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Vs Assistant… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2755/2020

¶3

Bhairu Lal Son Of Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Bajrang Nagar, Kaniya Station Ke Pas, Kota

¶4

Ghanshyam Son Of Shri Prabhulal Kumawat, Resident Of Kanwas Kota (Through Hind Majdoor Sabha Bangali Colony, Chhawani, Kota)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Engineer, Sawan Bhado Pariyojna, Sinchai Upkhand Dra Kota

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Sharma for Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

26/09/2023

¶13

Instant petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 09.07.2018 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota by which claim petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were engaged on daily wages on 11.09.1985 and their services were terminated by respondents without issuing any notice or without making any payment of compensation. Counsel submits that in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’) the impugned order has been passed. Counsel submits that petitioners approached Labour Court for redressal of their grievances but the Labour Court has rejected the claim petition on the ground that petitioners have failed to prove that

¶15

[CW-2755/2020]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

they have worked for the establishment for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Counsel submits that adequate evidence was produced in this regard but that evidence was not considered by Labour Court and the impugned award has been passed.

¶18

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the award indicates that the petitioners have not adduced adequate evidence in support of their contentions that they have worked with the respondents establishment for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

¶19

Whereas, the respondent has produced the record before the Labour Court which clearly indicates that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. On the basis of the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the respondent, a finding of fact has been recorded in this regard, which cannot be re-appreciated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

This Court does not find any illegality or adversity in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.

¶21

Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶22

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶23

Simple Kumawat /89

Bhairu Lal Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal v. Assistant Engineer, Sawan Bhado Pariyojna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairu Lal Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal v. Assistant Engineer, Sawan Bhado Pariyojna

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

Dhanraj Choudhary Vs the District Collector and Ors.

Mahaveer Prasad Vs Municipal Board Nawalgarh Ors.

Dr Gangadhar Mittal Vs State Medical and Health Depors

Narpat Singh Son of Shri Rewat Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Swati Indoria Daughter of Babu Lal Vs Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board

Kamlesh Kumar Jaiman Vs State of Raj and Ors.