Dismissed

Kadar v. Judge Labour and Industrial Tr

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2023CW/8621/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for reinstatement. The court held the petitioner abandoned service, rendering provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act inapplicable and the Tribunal's decision non-erroneous.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the writ petition is dismissed and no order of reinstatement is issued.

Kadar Vs Judge Labour and Industrial Tr — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 862112008

¶3

Kadar S/o Shri Badar, aged about 38 years, Rlo Gram Ruparal Post Piplane, Panchayat Samiti Masuda District Ajmer

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Judge Labour And Industrial Tribunal Civil Court, Jaipur 2. Assistant Engineer Revenue And Vitran Distribution PHED, Ajmer Road, Beawar

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan Addl. GC

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶9

Order

¶10

23/08/2023

¶11

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶12

following prayer:-

¶13

'It is therefore, prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept this petition and the award dated 18.12.07 may be declared null and void and perverse and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and relief of re-instatement with consequential benefits may be award to the workman

¶14

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may think just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

¶15

2. Contents of the petiticn indicate that the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal for his reinstatement. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the petitioner workman was engaged on 01.04.1989 and his services were terminated by the respondents on 01.04.1990. By way of claim petition before the Labour Court, the petitioner sought

¶16

direction to declare his termination as illegal and void. After appreciating the evidence available on the record, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition by holding that petitioner himself abandoned the services and his services were not terminated by the respondents and, accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.12.2007.

¶17

Perusal of the documents available on the record, specifically tc the cross-examination of the petitioner workman clearly indicate that the petitioner himself abandoned his service 37; 01.04.1990. Hence, under these circumstances, the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted. The Tribunal has not committed any Ierror in rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner.

¶18

Instant petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶19

All application(s) (pending, if any) also stand dismissed.

¶20

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Kadar v. Judge Labour and Industrial Tr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadar v. Judge Labour and Industrial Tr

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

Shiv Charan Lal Vs State and Others

State and Ors. Vs Bheru Lal Raigar and Ors.

Sewa Ram Vs Vikas Adhikari