[2025:RJ-JP:36734]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 826/2002 Ram Prakash Gautam S/o Shri Sita Ram Gautam aged about 36 years R/o 687 Katta Clinic, Ist Crossing Jat Ke Kuve Ka Rasta Chandpole Bazar Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus

1. Judge Labour Court Sahdev Marg C-Scheme Jaipur

2. General Manager Mahila Whole Sale Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar B-6 Chiddan Marg Malvia Marg Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap with Ms. Sarita Choudhary For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

10/09/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 28.04.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court First, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned Labour Court’) in LCR No.189/94 whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner-workman (for brevity, ‘workman’), his statement of claim is dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed a statement of claim against the respondent/employer stating therein that vide order dated 06.11.1989, he was appointed as wholesaler; but, on 12.06.1990, he was compelled to tender his resignation forcibly and under threatening. It was further stated that despite his request to withdraw the same as it was given under pressure, the resignation was accepted. It was, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits.

In its reply, the respondents, denying the averments made in the statement of claim, submitted that the workman has submitted the resignation voluntarily and after its acceptance, he had handed over charge to Shri Narendra Sharma, the godown keeper.

After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the statement of claim vide award impugned dated 28.04.2001.

Assailing the award, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the workman is that he was not subjected to any cross examination qua the contents of para no.3 of the affidavit (Annexure 2) wherein, it was stated that he did not tender the resignation on 12.06.1990 voluntarily; but, was forced to do so. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 28.04.2001 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits.

Heard. Considered.

The only question referred to the learned Labour Court for answer was as to whether the workman submitted the resignation voluntarily or he was compelled to do so? The learned Labour Court has, after appreciating the evidence available on record, held that the resignation was submitted by the workman voluntarily and his contention that he was compelled to do so under pressure and threatening, was only by way of an afterthought. It is trite law that this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of the learned Labour Court and reappreciation of the evidence is impermissible unless the findings are shown to be suffering from any perversity or patent illegality. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to do so.

His contention that since, he was not subjected to cross examination qua the contents of para no.3 of his affidavit wherein, he has categorically stated not to have tendered the resignation voluntarily; but, under pressure, does not merit acceptance. A perusal of his cross examination reveals that he was subjected to elaborate cross examination on this aspect. In his cross examination, on suggestion, he has denied to have tendered the resignation voluntarily. He has further been subjected to cross examination as to who was present at the time he tendered the resignation and the place where he tendered the same. He was further asked as to whether he shared the allegation that he was compelled to tender the resignation with any of his colleague. In view thereof, this Court is not satisfied th