State of Raj. and ors Vs. Moti Lal

State of Raj. and ors vs Moti Lal

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Aug 29, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1163636

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1163636
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Aug 29, 2014
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Raj. and ors

Respondent

Moti Lal

Excerpt

.....by which the labour court had answered the reference in favour of the respondent- workman and issued directions to the department to reinstate him on the post in question. learned single judge found that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated without compliance of the provisions of section 25-f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the act”.).further, the respondent-workman had completed more than 240 days from the date of preceding one calendar year from the date of termination. the learned single judge further found that whereas the award was made on 23.2.2008, the writ petition was filed on 5.12.2013 i.e.with the delay of 5 years without any explanation. 2 it is submitted by mr.bajrang lal verma, project officer, tribal area development department, doongarpur, oic present-in person that the award was ex-parte and that as soon as the department acquired knowledge about the passing of the award, the writ petition was filed. we do not find that there was any averment in the writ petition about the date of the knowledge of the award. there was no explanation whatsoever given in the writ petition for condonation of delay in challenging the award. in order to satisfy ourselves, with the legality of the order, we have perused the findings recorded by the labour court and do not find any error of law. the labour court considered the evidence led before it, regarding the validity of the termination of services of the respondent-workman and recorded the findings that the workman was working regularly on the vacant post for more than 5 years and that the employer did not comply with the provisions of section 25-f of the industrial disputes act before terminating the services of the respondent workman. we do not find any good reason to admit the special appeal. the special appeal is dismissed. (vijay bishnoi).j. (sunil ambwani),actg.cj. parmar

Full Judgment

1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1245/14 State of Rajasthan & ORS.V/s Moti Lal 29.8.2014 HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.Bajrang Lal Verma, Project Officer, Tribal Area Development Department, Doongarpur, OIC present in person.

This special appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.5.2014 by which he has declined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, Udaipur dated 23.2.2008 in Labour Dispute No.162/2001, by which the Labour Court had answered the reference in favour of the respondent- workman and issued directions to the Department to reinstate him on the post in question.

Learned Single Judge found that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.).Further, the respondent-workman had completed more than 240 days from the date of preceding one calendar year from the date of termination.

The learned Single Judge further found that whereas the award was made on 23.2.2008, the writ petition was filed on 5.12.2013 i.e.with the delay of 5 years without any explanation.

2 It is submitted by Mr.Bajrang Lal Verma, Project Officer, Tribal Area Development Department, Doongarpur, OIC present-in person that the award was ex-parte and that as soon as the Department acquired knowledge about the passing of the award, the writ petition was filed.

We do not find that there was any averment in the writ petition about the date of the knowledge of the award.

There was no explanation whatsoever given in the writ petition for condonation of delay in challenging the award.

In order to satisfy ourselves, with the legality of the order, we have perused the findings recorded by the Labour Court and do not find any error of law.

The Labour Court considered the evidence led before it, regarding the validity of the termination of services of the respondent-workman and recorded the findings that the workman was working regularly on the vacant post for more than 5 years and that the employer did not comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act before terminating the services of the respondent workman.

We do not find any good reason to admit the special appeal.

The special appeal is dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI).J.

(SUNIL AMBWANI),Actg.CJ.

Parmar

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2014 Same Parties State of Raj. and ors vs Moti Lal Same Subject Labour and Industrial