[2026:RJ-JP:341]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2976/2004 Ramveer S/o Shi Gutairam, aged about 36 years, R/o Kharagpura, Post Tajpura, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur.

----Petitioner/Workman Versus

1. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur.

2. The Labour Court Bharatpur through its Presiding Officer.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Paliwal on behalf of Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

07/01/2026

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby reference made by appropriate Government with regard to termination of services of the petitioner has been answered by the Labour Court against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged on 25.09.1990 as Hand Pump Mistri by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur. He also submits that although he completed more than 240 days services, yet without giving any notice as well as without following provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') as well as Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, his services were terminated whereas the persons junior to him namely Siyaram, Jeevan Singh & Rajveer Singh were still working and after his termination even the employer has given fresh employment, yet no opportunity was given to the petitioner for participating in the fresh appointment process.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the termination of petitioner's services w.e.f. 01.01.1992, he raised industrial disputes before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted failure report before the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to Labour Court for adjudication where the terms of reference were as to whether termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1992 were legal and valid or not and, if not, the workman is entitled for what relief. He also submits that the petitioner/workman filed statement of claim which was opposed by the respondents by way of filing reply. Thereafter, evidence was led by both the parties and vide award dated 04.02.2003, the reference has been answered against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the award dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Labour Court is totally against the facts of the case, material and evidence on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits that the evidence laid by the petitioner has been misread and missappreciated by the Labour Court and in fact he has worked for more than 240 days, yet his statements during cross-examination have been misconstrued and a perverse finding with regard to not completing 240 days just preceding the order of termination has been given.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the findings given by the Labour Court qua Section 25 (G) & (H) of the Act of 1947 are also perverse, for the reason that although specific names were given by the petitioner in his statement of claim as well as in affidavit of the persons who were although junior to the petitioner, yet were retained in services where petitioner's service were terminated; as well as it was also mentioned in the affidavit that after termination of the service of the petitioner, the other workmen have been appointed without any opportunity to the petitioner. Yet, ignoring the fact that there was no cross-examination on the said point, the plea raised by the petitioner has been rejected by the Labour Court which is a material perversity in the impugned award and same is liable to be quashed and set aside, with further relief of his statement along with all other consequential benefits to the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for th