Kalulal Meena S/O Sh. Gangaram Meena Vs Manager

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Kota (for short, ‘the Labour Court’) by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner against his termination order dated 01.04.2002 has been rejected on a technical count that in reference, the date of termination order of the petitioner was not mentioned.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Gatekeeper by the respondents on 01.10.1982 and he continued on the said post till 28.02.2003 and all of sudden, his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 01.04.2002 without issuing any notice or without paying any amount of compensation to the petitioner. Counsel submits that the aforesaid act of the respondent is against the mandate contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶14

[2025:RJ-JP:11773]

¶15

[CW-17873/2024]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

Counsel submits that an industrial dispute was raised through Union before the appropriate Government. Counsel submits that re-conciliation proceedings between the parties were failed and thereafter, a reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court vide order dated 26.05.2005, for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Counsel submits that while making the aforesaid reference, the date of termination of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.04.2002 but this fact was overlooked by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order, hence under these circumstance, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶18

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the contentions raised by counsel for petitioner before this Court are correct and in the reference order specifically mentioned that the date of termination of the petitioner was 01.04.2002. It appears that while passing the impugned order, incorrect facts have been mentioned in the para 11 of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court and the date of termination order of the petitioner is not mentioned in the reference order. It appears that either the aforesaid date was not looked into by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order or the date is skipped from the notice of the Labour Court. The award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶19

The present petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for its fresh adjudication on merits. The

[2025:RJ-JP:11773]

[CW-17873/2024]

(3 of 3)

petitioner is permitted to appear before the Labour Court on 15.04.2025.

¶24

It is expected from the Labour Court to decide the dispute between the parties, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶25

It is made clear that this ex-parte order has been passed against the respondents, hence they were not aware about passing of this order, it is expected from the Labour Court to proceed with the matter, after issuing notice to the other side.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

Ashu/7

Kalulal Meena S/O Sh. Gangaram Meena v. Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalulal Meena S/O Sh. Gangaram Meena v. Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Reena Todi D/O Shri Mahadev Prasad Todi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwan Sahai Sharma S/O Shri Suva Lal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Deputy General Manager (Statistics) and Authorized Disciplinary Officer Vs Shri Tej Singh (Driver) S/O Shri Onkar Singh

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

Balkrishna Sharma Vs the Urban Co-Operative Bank Lt

Mahaveer Prasad Chauhan Vs State of Raj and Ors.