Dismissed

Inam Ahmed v. Judge Labour Court Anr.

Rajasthan HC18 May 2023CW/8092/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award rejecting a reinstatement claim, the petitioner argued he never resigned and the resignation letter was forged and produced late. The court noted the resignation was admitted in the employer's reply and available as Ex.W-1, finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the impugned award was dismissed and the stay application was also dismissed.

Inam Ahmed Vs Judge Labour Court Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011264]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8092/2013

¶4

Inam Ahmed S/o Shri Babu Khan, aged about 50 years, Resident of H.No.870, M.D. Road, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Judge, Labour Court No.1, Jaipur

¶8

Proprietor, Novelty Garments, Behind Golimar Garden, Amber Road, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents/Non-Applicant

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶12

18/05/2023

¶13

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned award dated 07.02.2013 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur in LCR case No. 51/2006 by which the claim petition filed by the petitioner for his reinstatement has been rejected.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned award the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner himself has resigned hence no provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been violated and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Counsel submits that the petitioner never resigned. Rather his services were terminated orally. Counsel submits that the resignation of the petitioner was not available on the record of the Labour Court and no such plea was taken by the respondents in their reply. Counsel submits that the so-called resignation letter was produced on record at the fag end of the matter hence and the petitioner could not get any

[2023/RJJP/011264]

[CW-8092/2013]

(2 of 2)

opportunity, to lodge an FIR against the respondent No. 2 for submitting his false, fabricated resignation with his forged signatures. Counsel submits that under these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the para Nos. 6 to 12 and 15 of the reply submitted by the respondents No. 2 clearly indicates that the petitioner was engaged as Daily Wager in December, 1994 but he himself resigned on 10.10.1996 by tendering resignation. No rejoinder or counter to the reply has been filed by the workman to revert the above averments.

¶20

This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the resignation letter was submitted at the vague end of the trial before the Labour Court. Rather the reference of the resignation was very much there in the averments of the reply and the copy of the resignation was available on the record and the same was marked as Ex.W-1. The Labour Court after perusing the contents of the resignation came to the definite conclusion that the workman himself submitted his resignation, hence the provisions contained under the Act of 1947 were not attracted. Accordingly the claim petition filed by the petitioner was rejected.

¶21

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stands dismissed.

¶22

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶23

MR/27

Inam Ahmed v. Judge Labour Court Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inam Ahmed v. Judge Labour Court Anr.

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

Hanuman Sahai Sharma Vs Director Gramin Vikas and Panchy

Nandkishore Meghvansi S/O Shri Jagdish Meghvansi Vs Manager Isuzu Garments

Jagdish Prasad Narad Vs the Director Medical Andhealthandors

District Collector Vs Shri Rajkumar S/O Shri Radhey Shyam

Dharma Chand Jain Vs State Higher Education Depors

Ramnarain Mina Vs State of Raj and Ors.