Quashed

Sewa Ram v. Vikas Adhikari

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2023CW/4840/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner workman challenged the Labour Court's award rejecting his termination claim. Court held the Labour Court exceeded jurisdiction by framing and deciding additional issues beyond the reference, quashing the award and remitting the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award of Labour Court quashed and set aside; matter remitted to Labour Court with directions to decide the reference expeditiously within one year.

Sewa Ram Vs Vikas Adhikari — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4840/2001

¶3

Sewa Ram S/o Shri Hanuman Ram Resident of Dhani Bavni Ki, Tan Tehat Post Roopgarh, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar (Raj,)

¶4

...PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS-

¶6

1.Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Danta Pamgarh, District Sikar (Raj.).

¶7

2.Labour Court No.2, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

...RESPONDENTS.

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

23/08/2023

¶13

By way of filing this petition the petitioner workman (hereinafter referred as ‘workman’) has assailed the validity of the award dated 20.07.2001 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR No.842/1998 by which the claim petition filed by the workman has been rejected.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner workman was engaged as labourer with the respondents establishement for the purpose of plantation on 01.07.1989 and his services were terminated by the respondents on 31.12.1992 in violation of the mandate contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel

¶15

[CW-4840/2001]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government and a specific reference was sent by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for its answer. Counsel submits that going beyond the reference the Labour Court framed three issues as if the Labour Court was acting or discharging the functions of the Civil Court. Counsel submits that three additional issues were framed by the Labour Court and the issue No.1 and 2 were decided in favour of the workman but the issue No.3 has been decided against the workman. Counsel submits that the Labour Court was supposed to answer the reference and not to frame additional issues and adjudicate the same, hence the award passed by the Labour Court is legally not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent establishment opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the workman was engaged in a particular scheme of plantation and after completion of the said scheme services of the workman were not required, hence the Labour Court has rightly decided the issue No.3 against the workman. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶20

This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as labourer by the respondent workman on 01.07.1989 for the purpose of plantation and this fact is not in dispute that his services were terminated by the respondents on 31.12.1992. This fact is also not in dispute that after termination the workman

¶21

[CW-4840/2001]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government and after failure of the reconciliation proceedings, a specific reference was sent to the Labour Court for its adjudication. Going beyond the questions framed in the reference the Labour Court has framed three additional issues which were not warranted. The Labour Court was supposed to adjudicate the question referred to it, but here in the instant case instead of doing so, the Labour Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction to decide the claim by treating itself as a Civil Court. Under these circumstances the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of by remitted back the matter to the Labour Court to decide the reference in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 14.09.2023.

¶25

The Labour Court is expected to decide the matter expeditiously as early as possible not beyond the period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

KuD/29

Sewa Ram v. Vikas Adhikari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewa Ram v. Vikas Adhikari

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

Sayed Immamuddin Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vijay Vs State Education Departmentanr

Tej Karan Bonlia Vs State Ayurvedi Deparmentors

Kadar Vs Judge Labour and Industrial Tr

Shiv Charan Lal Vs State and Others

State and Ors. Vs Bheru Lal Raigar and Ors.