[2025:RJ-JP:47075]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20348/2018

1. Shri Om Prakash S/o Tuliya, Since Deceased, Through His Legal Representatives

2. Smt. Anguri Devi Wife Of Late Shri Om Prakash, R/o Ronhai, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

3. Raju S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, R/o Ronhai, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

4. Ajay Son Of Late Shri Om Prakash Minor Through His Mother Smt. Anguri Devi, Aged About 14 Years, R/o Ronhai, Tehsil Sepau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma, for Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

19/11/2025

1. This civil writ petition has been filed against the award dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur whereby the statement of claim presented by the petitioner was rejected.

2. The concise facts of the case are that the workman Om Prakash was employed as Beldar with the respondents with effect from 01.07.1989 at different places of the district Dholpur and served them till 31.12.1993. However, his services were retrenched, post which, he raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate government. The appropriate government referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur vide its notification dated 27.12.2000 after the reconciliation proceedings failed.

3. The learned Labour Court then issued notices to the parties, in pursuance of which, the petitioner submitted his statement of claim and the non-petitioners put their appearance and filed their reply to the statement of claim. The petitioner also filed an application dated 17.11.2005 seeking that the non-petitioners be directed to produce the relevant service record and the same was allowed by the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 02.05.2006. The learned counsel for petitioners allege that since the non-petitioners failed to produce the said record, the burden of proof was adequately discharged by the petitioners by filing such application and was then shifted upon the non-petitioners.

4. The present dispute was jointly raised by Shiv Charan and Om Prakash and a statement of claim was also filed jointly. However, during the course of proceedings, Shiv Charan died on 01.08.2012, following which the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 18.09.2014 dropped the proceedings so far as it relates to workman Shiv Charan and passed an award dated 20.01.2015 against both the workmen. The workman Om Prakash challenged the impugned award dated 20.01.2015 before this Court which set aside the same via its order dated 29.04.2016 and remanded the case back to the learned Labour Court.

5. The workman Om Prakash died on 16.01.2017, post which, his legal representatives were substituted in the cause title by the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 23.03.2018. Further, the statement of claim of the petitioners was rejected via order dated

23.04.2018 for the reason that the workman failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the facts on record, it falls upon the Court to assess whether the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court calls for any interference when the burden of proof has not been adequately discharged by the petitioner.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ali v. State of H.P. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3803 of 2018 observed as under:-

“9. It is a well known fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare legislation. The intention behind the enactment of this Act was to protect the employees from arbitrary retrenchments...Section 25B of the Act provides that when a person can be said to have worked for one year and the very reading