The instant case is a glaring example of availing two parallel remedies against the order of termination from service dated 01.12.2001, filed at the instance of the petitioner.

¶14

It appears that the services of the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as “the workman”) were terminated by the respondents, for which a reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court to decide the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner on 19.04.2003. The reference remained pending before the Labour Court for a considerable time, but no statement of claim was submitted by the petitioner and in the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.637/2005. The petition submitted by the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2013 observing therein that for want of filing statement of claim before

¶15

[2025:RJ-JP:14684]

¶16

[CW-10558/2016]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

the Labour Court, the reference was decided against the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Kota. It was also observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the said order passed by the Labour Court was not assailed by the petitioner and thus, writ petition was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2013.

¶19

It appears that the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1307/2013, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 29.11.2013, granting liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the Labour Court. Ensuing to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an application before the Labour Court for granting him one more opportunity to file the statement of claim petition and evidence, but the said application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 07.04.2016 only on the technical count that earlier, the matter has been closed by the Labour Court vide order dated 29.11.2005 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner hence, the same has attained finality.

¶20

This fact is not in dispute that the order dated 29.11.2005 has not been challenged by the petitioner in any of the proceedings neither before the Co-ordinate Bench nor before the Division Bench of this Court, hence, under these circumstances, the said order has attained finality. Until and unless, the aforesaid order is challenged by the petitioner, he is not entitled to get any relief.

[2025:RJ-JP:14684]

[CW-10558/2016]

(3 of 3)