Dismissed

Satyanarayan Son of Shri Madholal v. Assistant Engineer

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024CW/699/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Labour Court award dismissing a claim for relief arising from termination after 240 days work. The High Court dismissed the writ, finding no perversity in the Labour Court's finding that the petitioner failed to prove service duration despite rebuttal evidence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition under Article 227 was dismissed; the Labour Court award dated 13.11.2018 and the claim petition remain dismissed.

Satyanarayan Son of Shri Madholal Vs Assistant… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:29710]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 699/2020

¶4

Satyanarayan Son Of Shri Madholal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Sarknya Tehsil Anta District Baran (By Joint Mahamntri, Hind Majdoor Sabha, Bengali Colony, Chhavni Kota)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Engineer, Public Work Department, Sub Division Mangrol, District Baran.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order

¶11

16/07/2024

¶12

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the award dated 13.11.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota (for brevity, “the learned Labour Court”) whereby, the Reference No.140/2008 has been answered against the petitioner and the claim petition filed by him has been dismissed.

¶13

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a claim petition stating therein that vide order dated 01.12.1993, he was employed by the respondent as Beldar and despite rendering services for more than 240 days in the relevant calendar year, his services were terminated in the month of December, 1994 violating the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, “the Act of 1947”). The

[2024:RJ-JP:29710]

[CW-699/2020]

(2 of 3)

Claim petition has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 13.11.2018.

¶18

Assailing the award, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate that the evidence on record established that he had completed 240 days in the relevant calendar year before termination of his services resulting into violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947. He therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 13.11.2018 be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by him be allowed.

¶19

Heard. Considered.

¶20

While dismissing the claim petition and answering the reference against the petitioner, the learned Labour Court has held that he miserably failed to establish that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more in the relevant calendar year. While, it was observed that except making a bald averment in the claim petition and in his affidavit that he had worked from 01.12.1993 till 30.11.1994 for a period more than 240 days, he failed to produce any document in support thereof, on the other hand, the respondents not only rebutted the averments made by the petitioner; but also produced the documents, i.e., Ex-M1 to ExM14 to demonstrate that he did not work for the period of 240 days or more in the calendar year prior to the date of alleged retrenchment. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 2005 LLR 737: Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani and Ors. , it was held that it was for the workmen to establish that he has worked for 240 days or more in

¶21

(3 of 3) [CW-699/2020]

¶22

[2024:RJ-JP:29710]

¶23

the calendar year in order to establish the violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947.

¶24

Since, the aforesaid findings have not demonstrated to be suffering from any perversity, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Labour Court based on appreciation of material on record and on the sound legal principles.

¶25

Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶26

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶28

Sudha/75

Satyanarayan Son of Shri Madholal v. Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Son of Shri Madholal v. Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

Kamlesh Meena S/O Shri Hariram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr Rajendra Prasad Bugalia S/O Shree Bhairun Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajaram Gupta S/O Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manohar Lal Gurjar, S/O Govardhan Lal Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Dr. Yogesh Agarwal