[2026:RJ-JP:2657]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20147/2025 Amrit Lal S/o Shri Badri Lal Luhar, Through Vidhi Sachiv, Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra Branch Jhalawar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Principal, Rajkiya Abhiyantrik Mahavidhliya, Chandloi Jhalarpatan, District Jhalawar.

2. Niyojak, M/s Rajendra Sharma, A-1 Type Of Government Labour Contractor, 2/84, Double Stories, Naka Madar, Ajmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

21/01/2026

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Learned Labour Court, Kota under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been put to challenge.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee by the respondent- department on 07.01.2008, and the petitioner continued to render his services upon the said post till 11.06.2009. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated verbally on 12.06.2009 by the respondents, without complying with the mandatory provisions enshrined under the Act. It is further submitted that the dispute inter se the parties was initially decided to be settled by way of the conciliation proceedings. However, upon failure of the same, the said dispute has been referred by the Conciliation Officer to the learned Labour Court, for adjudication regarding the validity of the said termination.

3. Learned counsel submits that it has been asserted in the statement of claim filed therein, that the petitioner had rendered more than 240 days of continuous service in the specified calendar year, but the services of the petitioner were terminated without issuing a month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof, in violation of provisions enshrined under Section 25G of the Act.

4. However, it is also submitted that in reply to the said assertions of the petitioner, the respondent-department had categorically stated therein, that there exists no employer- employee relationship inter se the parties, as the petitioner was not a regular/direct employee and the engagement of the petitioner was carried out through contract firm namely, M/s Rajendra Sharma A-1 Type of Government Labour Contractor, who was also a party therein, but it is pertinent to note that the said order has been passed ex-parte, without the presence of both the respondents therein.

5. It has been observed that the respondents had further stated therein, that the petitioner was merely a daily wager employee, and no documentary evidences whatsoever, existed to substantiate the fact that the petitioner has been appointed directly by the respondent-department.

6. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions put forth therein, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order dated

14.08.2025. The relevant portion of the findings is reproduced as under:

“10. प्रार्थी(cid:4) द्वारा अपनी साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श(cid:20) डब्ल्यू

3 एवं प्रदर्श(cid:20) डब्ल्यू 6 सबसे महत्वूपर्ण(cid:20) दस्तावेज है जिजससे प्रार्थी(cid:4) के अप्रार्थी(cid:4) सं. 1 के सार्थी कम(cid:20)कार जिनयोजक का संबंध स्थाजिपत होता है। प्रदर्श(cid:20) डब्ल्यू 3 अप्रार्थी(cid:4) सं. 1 प्राचाय(cid:20) द्वारा समझौता अजिधकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत जवाब प्रार्थी(cid:20)ना पत्र है जिजसकी मद सं. 2 में अप्रार्थी(cid:4) ने यह वजिर्ण(cid:20)त जिकया है जिक प्रार्थी(cid:4) पेयजल लेकर डेली मजदूरी पर काय(cid:20) करता र्थीा वह अप्रार्थी(cid:4) के जिनयोजन में नहीं र्थीा इस कारर्ण उसे जिकसी प्रकार का नोजि1स जिदए जाने की आवश्यकता नहीं र्थीी एवं अप्रार्थी(cid:4) ने प्रार्थी(cid:4) को जिद. 12.06.2009 को सेवा ह1ाना जिमथ्य बताया है। प्रदर्श(cid:20) डब्ल्यू 6 में प्रोक्टर, राजकीय इंजिजजिनयरिरंग कॉलेज, झालावाड़ ने यह वजिर्ण(cid:20)त जिकया है जिक अमृतलाल पुत्र श्री बद्रीलाल महाजिवद्यालय में दैजिनक वेतन भोगी अस्थाई चतुर्थी(cid:20) श्रेर्णी कम(cid:20)चारी के रूप में काय(cid:20)रत है जिकन्तु प