Ramdayal Vs Assistant Engineer

This instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Case No.77/2014 (42/2003) by which the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the award dated 14.01.2002 qua the petitioner has been rejected.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with similarly situated persons raised an industrial dispute and in the said matter one representative i.e. Ramavtar Jain was authorized to appear on their behalf and litigate the matter before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that the petitioner remained under the belief that whenever the presence of the petitioner would be required, he would be called upon to adduce his evidence by the said representation. Counsel submits that the said representative namely Ramavtar Jain did not appear on the fateful

¶15

[2025:RJ-JP:4919]

¶16

[CW-9390/2018]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

day, thus, the opportunity of the petitioner was closed and in absence of the evidence of the petitioner, his statement of claim has been rejected vide order dated 14.01.2002. Counsel submits that a similar claim petition submitted by other workmen has been allowed and a direction has been issued for their reinstatement in service with continuity.

¶19

Counsel submits that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for his non-appearance as witness, for the purpose of recording his evidence hence, last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to adduce his evidence, subject to deposition of payment of cost.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments and submitted that the claim petition was filed in the year 1991 and the petitioner got sufficient time to adduce evidence but he failed to do so. Hence, under these circumstances, the Labour Court had no other option except to reject the claim petition. Counsel submits that even the application was also submitted after a slight delay thus it has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court while passing a reasoned order and therefore, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that several claim petitions were submitted by different workmen including the petitioner. The record indicates that one Ramavtar Jain was authorized to represent and appear on behalf of all the workmen. It appears that the petitioner was not communicated by the said

[2025:RJ-JP:4919]

[CW-9390/2018]

(3 of 4)

representative that he has to appear for recording of his evidence before the Labour Court and the petitioner remained under the belief that he would be called upon for recording of his evidence and on account of the aforesaid communication gap between the representative and the petitioner, the evidence of the petitioner could not be recorded and the right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed by the Labour Court. However, the claim petition submitted by the other workmen was allowed vide award dated 14.01.2002 and the claim petition submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Labour Court, for want of evidence of the petitioner. There was a slight negligence on the part of the petitioner as he remained very casual in ventilating his grievance before the Labour Court, while the other workmen were vigilant and that is why their evidence was recorded. Be that as it may, the relief was granted by the Labour Court to the other workmen however the same was denied to have been granted to the petitioner on the basis of the same pleading.

¶26

Therefore, under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it just and proper to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence before the Labour Court, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-State. Accordingly, it is directed that in case, the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the State, as cost, the Labour Court is directed to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner for leading his evidence and thereafter, fresh orders be passed, strictly in accordance with law.

¶27

In view of above, the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 stands quashed and set aside and as a consequence, thereof, the

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:4919]

[CW-9390/2018]

award dated 14.01.2002 qua the petitioner stands quashed and set aside. The matter of the petitioner is remanded back for its fresh disposal on its merits.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶33

All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

Garima/146

Ramdayal v. Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdayal v. Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kiran Bhatia W/O Shri Tilak Bhatia Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalyan Prasad S/O Bholanath (Deceased) through Legal Representative Vs Thakurji Sitaramji Virajman Mandir Qila Utgir Village Gota

Kiran Jef D/O Hanuman Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan

Roopesh Kumar S/O Shri Bachu Singh Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahsi Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

The Managing Committee Vs State of Raj and Ors.