Dismissed

Amolak Sain v. U P Van Sanrakshak Andanr

Rajasthan HC18 Mar 2025CW/13860/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an award closing industrial dispute proceedings due to the workman's failure to file a statement of claim. The Court held that the petitioner's plea of ignorance was vague and unpersuasive, upholding the Labour Court's decision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amolak Sain Vs U P Van Sanrakshak Andanr — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:12121]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13860/2015

¶4

Amolak Sain Son Of Shri Dhansiram Sain, Range Office Ke Samne, Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Up Van Sanrakshak And Up Nideshak, Kor, Bagh Pariyojna, Rashtriya Udhan, Ranthambhor.

¶8

Kshetriya Van Adhikari Kor, Bagh Pariyojna, Rashtriya Udhan, Ranthambhor. Range Khandar, Sawai Madhopur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ashindra Gautam
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rahul Lodha,AGC

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

18/03/2025

¶14

By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made by the petitioner to the impugned award dated 13.07.2001 as well as the order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur. By passing the order dated 13.07.2001, the matter was closed by the Labour Court after its reference from the appropriate Government on the ground that in-spite of passing of more than two years and receipt of the reference, no statement of claim was submitted by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’). 2. After passing of six months, an application was submitted by the petitioner for grant of one more opportunity to file statement of claim, however, the said application

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:12121]

[CW-13860/2015]

submitted by him has been rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 2.05.2014.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware about the reference made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, hence, under these circumstances, he could not file statement of claim. Counsel submits that as per the claim of the petitioner, he never engaged any representative i.e. Murari Lal Gupta to appear on his behalf and file statement of claim before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that for the first time, the workman came to know from the department that his case has been decided by the Labour Court by the impugned order dated 13.07.2001. Hence, under these circumstances, the application was submitted for granting him one opportunity to file statement of claim against his termination order dated 01.08.1996. Counsel submits that the reasons for his absence were explained by the workman in the application, but the same were not considered and appreciated by the Labour Court and the impugned order dated 02.05.2014 has been passed, which is required to be quashed by this Court while granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to file statement of claim before the Labour Court.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the request of the workman, conciliation proceedings were initiated and when the same yielded no result, the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for deciding the industrial

[2025:RJ-JP:12121]

[CW-13860/2015]

(3 of 4)

dispute raised by the workman. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order of reference was passed on 07.12.1998, but in-spite of passing of more than two years, no claim was submitted. Counsel submits that a representative of the petitioner-workman apprised the Labour Court that the workman is not interested in prosecuting the matter and accordingly, the award dated 13.07.2001 has been passed. Counsel submits that a vague plea has been taken by the workman that he never engaged any representative to appear on his behalf before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that another vague plea has been taken by the petitioner that he was not aware about reference and pendency of the matter before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that the reference was made at the instance of the petitioner, hence, it cannot be pleaded that the petitioner was not aware about pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court.

¶25

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent and looking to the fact that the dispute was raised by a person none other than the petitioner himself before the reconciliation officer against his termination order dated 01.08.1996. When the reconciliation proceedings failed between the parties, the appropriate Government made a reference vide order dated 07.12.1998 to the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute raised by the workman and thereafter, the matter remained pending

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:12121]

[CW-13860/2015]

before the Labour Court for a period of more than two years, but in-spite of seeking several opportunities before the Labour Court, no statement of claim was submitted by the petitioner.

¶30

It appears that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter and that is why, no claim was filed by him and accordingly, the award dated 13.07.2001 was passed by the Labour Court. It appears that after passing of the aforesaid award, the petitioner became prudent and came with a vague plea that he was not aware about pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court and that he has never engaged any representative to appear on his behalf. By no stretch of imagination, the pleas taken by the workman can be relied upon and no one would appear on behalf of any person as his representative unless and until, he has been authorized to do so. All these facts were well appreciated by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order dated 02.05.2014.

¶31

The order and award passed by the Labour Court are well reasoned and speaking one, which require no interference by this Court. This Court finds no merit and substance in this writ petition.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶33

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶34

KuD/129

Amolak Sain v. U P Van Sanrakshak Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amolak Sain v. U P Van Sanrakshak Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chouthmal (Senior Citizen) S/O Shri Panna Lal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Kalulal Meena S/O Sh. Gangaram Meena Vs Manager

Balkrishna Sharma Vs the Urban Co-Operative Bank Lt

Rakshapal Yadav Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Shivprashad S/O Shri Amarchand

Lokesh Sharma Son of Shri Abhay Nath Ji Vs the Union of India