[2026:RJ-JD:2242]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2203/2003 Janki Das Vaisnav, S/o Sh. Banshi Das Vaisnav, Aged about 30 years, R/o Post Umand, Tehsil Kapasan, Via Akola Chipon Ka, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bhupal Sagar, Tehsil Kapasan, District Chitorrgarh.

2. The Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Vyas with Ms. Vasundhara Gopa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav with Mr. Nilesh Choudhary HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

14/01/2026

1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of award dated 05.12.2002 (Annexure-6) passed by Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No.23/1998 whereby the claim petition as filed by the petitioner claimant stood rejected on the count of delay.

2. The learned Labour Court held that the dispute was raised by the workman after a period of 7 years of his retrenchment and hence he is not entitled to any relief.

3. Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the Apex Court judgments in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Murari Sharma; 2025 INSC 1500 and Shahaji Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD; (2005) 12 SCC 141 submitted that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the reference made in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) and hence, the learned Labour Court erred in rejecting the claim petition on the sole count of delay.

4. Counsel submitted that if the Labour Court found the claim to be a delayed one, it could have moulded the reliefs but could not have rejected the claim petition solely on that count.

5. Per contra Counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the learned Labour Court rightly rejected the claim as no reason for the huge delay of 7 years was assigned by the workman.

6. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner could not even have been governed by the provisions of the Act of 1947 as he was not a regular employee but had been deployed on contractual basis.

7. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.

8. It is evident that the learned Labour Court did not record any finding qua the service period of the workman or to the effect whether the retrenchment of the workman was in contravention to Section 25(f) and (g) of the Act of 1947. The ground of the workman not being a regular employee or he having completed a regular service of 240 days in a calendar year, etc. have not even been dealt with. The claim petition of the workman stood rejected only on the count of delay which, in the opinion of this Court, is contrary to the settled position of law. As held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. And Ors.; (1999) 6 SCC 82 a claim petition governed by the provisions of the Act of 1947 cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. The option therein is always open to the Courts to mould the reliefs keeping into consideration the delay caused in raising the claim. If the Court reaches to a finding that the retrenchment was illegal, it could definitely, in lieu of reinstatement, order for compensation or limit the relief qua the back wages.

9. In view of the above settled position of law, award impugned dated 05.12.2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara for decision afresh.

10. Needless to observe that the Court shall not be required to issue fresh notices to the parties as the present order has been passed in presence of Counsels for both the parties. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Labour Court, Bhilwara on 16.02.2026. The Court shall then proceed, in accordance with law.

11. Keeping into consideration the fact that the claim petition pertains to year 1998, the learned Labour Court shall be under an obligation to expedite the proceedings and decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of the r