Allowed

Shri Rajkumar Soni v. Managing Director R S M and M Ltd. Andanr

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2024CW/6357/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a 'No Claim Award' passed by the Industrial Tribunal because he submitted a statement of claim to the Labour Court before the Government made a reference under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court quashed the impugned order, granting liberty for the petitioner to withdraw the earlier claim and file a fresh one before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.06.2015 was quashed and set aside. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh statement of claim before the Tribunal at Jaipur within one month.

Shri Rajkumar Soni Vs Managing Director R S… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6357/2017

¶3

Shri Rajkumar Soni S/o Late Kishan Soni, 13/43, Behind Pinjra Pol Gau Shala, Sanganer, District Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited, Meera Road, Udaipur Rajasthan.

¶7

Group General Manager, Phosphate Division, Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited, Jhamarkotra, Girwa, Udaipur Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gagan Sharma for Mr. Sanjay
	Rahar
For Respondent(s)	:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

27/08/2024

¶13

Aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Reference No. L-29012/46/2013-IR(M) dated 22.05.2014 in I.D. No. 46/2014, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of this writ petition.

¶14

By way of passing of the award dated 25.06.2015, the Tribunal has passed an order of “No Claim Award” as the petitioner failed to file statement of claim, pursuant to the reference dated 22.05.2014.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Manager in the office of respondents as a daily

¶16

[CW-6357/2017]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

wager since 10.07.1986 and his services were extended from time to time and finally, he was regularized vide order dated 25.11.1992. Counsel submits that the petitioner was transferred from his place of posting to some other place but in the meantime, his wife and mother became ill and he sent information in this regard to the respondents but without considering the above facts, since the petitioner remained absent from duty, his name was struck off from the nominal roll, maintained by the respondents vide order dated 16.09.2010.

¶19

Aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government by way of filing an application under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that prior to disposal of the aforesaid application by mistake and on ill advice, he filed a statement of claim directly before the Labour Court, Udaipur on 03.10.2013 and remained under the impression that the statement of claim would be decided by the Labour Court, Udaipur on its merit and demerit but in the meantime, the appropriate Government made a reference and the petitioner was supposed to file his statement of claim before the Tribunal at Jaipur. Counsel submits that the petitioner remained under the bona fide mistake that since he has already submitted a statement of claim before the Labour Court at Udaipur, therefore, under these circumstances, he should not submit another statement of claim before the Tribunal at Jaipur. Counsel submits that on account of non-filing of statement of claim before the Tribunal at Jaipur, the Tribunal at Jaipur passed an order of “No Claim Award” vide impugned award dated

¶20

[CW-6357/2017]

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

25.06.2015. Counsel submits that now the petitioner has remained remediless as his statement of claim submitted before the Labour Court, Udaipur would not be decided on its merit in terms of the award dated 25.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal at Jaipur. The petitioner is very much keen in prosecuting the matter before the Tribunal at Jaipur, therefore in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 25.06.2015 be quashed and set aside and liberty be granted to him to file fresh statement of claim, pursunat to the reference order dated 22.05.2014 filed by the appropriate Government before the Tribunal at Jaipur and also liberty be granted to the petitioner to withdraw his statement of claim, pending before the Labour Court at Udaipur.

¶23

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that prior to reference order dated 22.05.2014 the petitioner submitted a statement of claim straightaway before the Labour Court, Udaipur challenging his order of termination dated 16.09.2010. It appears that the petitioner has shown his anxiety in filing a statement of claim before the Labour Court at Udaipur prior to reference made by the appropriate Government under Section 2(A) of the Act of 1947. 7. It appears that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 was decided by the appropriate Government and thereafter, a reference was made on 22.05.2014 before the Tribunal at Jaipur where the petitioner appeared and sought time to file the statement of claim but the same could not be filed because he had already filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court at Udaipur. Without considering this material

¶24

[CW-6357/2017]

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

aspect of the matter, the Tribunal at Jaipur had passed the impugned award dated 25.06.2015 treating the matter as “No Claim Award”, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has now become remediless.

¶27

Considering the material aspect of the matter, the impugned order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal stands quashed and set aside, granting liberty to the petitioner to withdraw his statement of claim from the Labour Court, Udaipur and file fresh statement of claim before the Tribunal at Jaipur.

¶28

In case, the entire exercise is carried out by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, it is expected from the Tribunal at Jaipur to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the other side, expeditiously as early as possible.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶30

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

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Ashu/12

Shri Rajkumar Soni v. Managing Director R S M and M Ltd. Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajkumar Soni v. Managing Director R S M and M Ltd. Andanr

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

Mana Ram S/O Shri Bhoma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Lal S/O Shri Puran Mal Jangir Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Murti Daughter of Late Shri Badliya Gurjar, Wife of Shri Phoolchand Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Malkhan Singh Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Akram S/O Alisher Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Nilam Kumari W/O Late Shri Jagat Singh D/O Shri Billu Ram Vs Union of India