Dismissed

Ramveer v. Development Officer Panchayat

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2026CW/2976/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a singles Bench order, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The Bench held that the Court cannot interfere with facts where the petitioner admitted working only two days before termination despite claiming 240 days, and the lower Court properly rejected violations of retrenchment provisions as evidence was insufficient.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed challenging the Labour Court award dated 04.02.2003 was dismissed.

Ramveer Vs Development Officer Panchayat — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:341]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2976/2004

¶4

Ramveer S/o Shi Gutairam, aged about 36 years, R/o Kharagpura, Post Tajpura, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶5

----Petitioner/Workman

¶6

Versus

¶7

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶8

The Labour Court Bharatpur through its Presiding Officer.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Abhishek Paliwal on behalf of
		Mr. DheerajTripathi,AGC

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

07/01/2026

¶14

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby reference made by appropriate Government with regard to termination of services of the petitioner has been answered by the Labour Court against the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged on 25.09.1990 as Hand Pump Mistri by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur. He also submits that although he completed more than 240 days services, yet without giving any notice as well as without following provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') as well as Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, his services were terminated

[2026:RJ-JP:341]

[CW-2976/2004]

(2 of 5)

whereas the persons junior to him namely Siyaram, Jeevan Singh & Rajveer Singh were still working and after his termination even the employer has given fresh employment, yet no opportunity was given to the petitioner for participating in the fresh appointment process.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the termination of petitioner's services w.e.f. 01.01.1992, he raised industrial disputes before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted failure report before the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to Labour Court for adjudication where the terms of reference were as to whether termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1992 were legal and valid or not and, if not, the workman is entitled for what relief. He also submits that the petitioner/workman filed statement of claim which was opposed by the respondents by way of filing reply. Thereafter, evidence was led by both the parties and vide award dated 04.02.2003, the reference has been answered against the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the award dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Labour Court is totally against the facts of the case, material and evidence on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits that the evidence laid by the petitioner has been misread and missappreciated by the Labour Court and in fact he has worked for more than 240 days, yet his statements during cross-examination have been misconstrued and a perverse finding with regard to not completing 240 days just preceding the order of termination has been given.

[2026:RJ-JP:341]

[CW-2976/2004]

(3 of 5)

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the findings given by the Labour Court qua Section 25 (G) & (H) of the Act of 1947 are also perverse, for the reason that although specific names were given by the petitioner in his statement of claim as well as in affidavit of the persons who were although junior to the petitioner, yet were retained in services where petitioner's service were terminated; as well as it was also mentioned in the affidavit that after termination of the service of the petitioner, the other workmen have been appointed without any opportunity to the petitioner. Yet, ignoring the fact that there was no cross-examination on the said point, the plea raised by the petitioner has been rejected by the Labour Court which is a material perversity in the impugned award and same is liable to be quashed and set aside, with further relief of his statement along with all other consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the award. It was argued that the scope of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited, where factual finding given by the Labour Court cannot be interfered until and unless there is manifest and apparent perversity in the award. It is submitted that learned Court below has properly appreciated the statement of claim as well as evidences led by both the parties where the petitioner has utterly failed to prove working of 240 or more days just preceding his date of termination and has rather admitted in his evidence that he had worked only for two days. It is also submitted that evidence with regard to provisions of Section 25 (G) & (H) of the Act of 1947 has also been duly appreciated by the

[2026:RJ-JP:341]

[CW-2976/2004]

(4 of 5)

learned Court below and since the evidence led by the petitioner was not consistent and specific, therefore, correct finding has been given that no case with regard to violation of Section 25 (G) & (H) of the Act of 1947 is made out. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶32

It is a settled proposition of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be interfered until and unless there is apparent and sufficient material to show that such findings are totally irrational and perverse. In the instant case, while examining the claim of the petitioner qua Section 25F of the Act of 1947, Labour Court has examined the contents of statement of claim, affidavit filed by the petitioner in evidence as well as his cross-examination in which the petitioner himself has admitted that he had worked only for two days. Such finding of fact does not call for any interference while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

So far as, question of violation of Section 25 (G) & (H) of the Act of 1947 are concerned, Labour Court has properly examined the evidence where petitioner has utterly failed to give proper details with regard to appointment and place of posting of his alleged juniors, who have been named in the statement of claim; nor such alleged juniors were produced in evidence by the petitioner. Similarly, the details of persons, who were appointed after termination of petitioner have been given in evidence by the petitioner. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find

[2026:RJ-JP:341]

[CW-2976/2004]

(5 of 5)

any error in the award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition and the same, is hereby, dismissed.

¶38

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶39

DAKSH/9

Ramveer v. Development Officer Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramveer v. Development Officer Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Saqxena Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Shri Lal Yadav Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Satu Lal Vs State Education Departmentors

Nathu Lal Sharma S/O Purushottam Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Mohan Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Shri Nathu La Sharma Vs Managing Director R S R T C a