Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State of Raj. and anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur and ors.

State of Raj. and anr. vs Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 20, 2011
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920728

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13586 of 2008
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

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

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections
Act,1947 - Sec.25 F

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Raj. and anr.

Advocate Mr. S.D. Khaspuria, Adv

Respondent

Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur and ors.

Advocate Mr. Govind Gupta, Adv

Legal References

Acts
Act,1947 - Sec.25 F

Excerpt

.....that from the muster-roll placed on record his presence has not been marked from 01.09.1993 and since he had completed more than 240 days, the respondents were under an obligation to comply the mandatory provision contemplated u/s.25f of the act,1947 and accordingly reference was answered in affirmative vide award impugned herein dt.02.07.2008 and while quashing and setting aside the order of termination w.e.f.01.09.1993, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service but without back wages. 3. counsel for petitioner has tried to convince this court that the finding which has been recorded that his services were terminated is not supported by any evidence on record and the fact is that respondent-workman did not turn up after 01.09.1993 and thus there was no occasion for the petitioner-employer to terminate his services. 4. this court does not find any substance in the submission made for the reason that if that being so it was always open for the petitioner to offer employment to the respondent-workman during the proceedings before the conciliation officer or pending proceedings before the tribunal but after the final award being passed the plea which has been raised is nothing but an excuse to save their skin and this court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned labour court while passing the award impugned dt.02.07.2008 which may call for interference. 5. consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Instant petition is directed against the Award passed by the Labour Court dt.02.07.2008 by which the reference made by the Appropriate Government was answered in affirmative.

2. It was alleged by the respondent-workman in his claim application that he was appointed on daily wages basis on 01.06.1987 and worked upto 01.09.1993 and without any notice or salary in lieu thereof, in breach of Sec.25-F & H of the Act his services were terminated and when he was not allowed to join duties reference was made by the Appropriate Government vide its notification dt.07.04.1997 which came up for adjudication before the learned Labour Court and after affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties the learned Labour Court recorded finding that he had worked from June,1987 to 30.08.1993 and without giving any notice or one month salary in lieu thereof and compensation which are pre-requisite condition u/S.25F of the Act,1947 the action of the authority was in violation of Sec.25F of the Act,1947. In para 9 of the Award it has also been recorded by the learned Labour Court that from the muster-roll placed on record his presence has not been marked from 01.09.1993 and since he had completed more than 240 days, the respondents were under an obligation to comply the mandatory provision contemplated u/S.25F of the Act,1947 and accordingly reference was answered in affirmative vide Award impugned herein dt.02.07.2008 and while quashing and setting aside the order of termination w.e.f.01.09.1993, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service but without back wages.

3. Counsel for petitioner has tried to convince this Court that the finding which has been recorded that his services were terminated is not supported by any evidence on record and the fact is that respondent-workman did not turn up after 01.09.1993 and thus there was no occasion for the petitioner-employer to terminate his services.

4. This Court does not find any substance in the submission made for the reason that if that being so it was always open for the petitioner to offer employment to the respondent-workman during the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer or pending proceedings before the Tribunal but after the final Award being passed the plea which has been raised is nothing but an excuse to save their skin and this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Labour Court while passing the Award impugned dt.02.07.2008 which may call for interference.

5. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial