(1 of 3)

[CW-18658/2018]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18658/2018

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Medical And

Health Services, Raj. Jaipur.

2.

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bhilwara.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Sukhdev Das S/o Shri Ladu Das, B/c Vaishnav, Gageda,

Tehsil Hurda, District Bhilwara.

2.

Industrial Tribunal And Labour Court, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Vandana Bhansali

Mr. Idrish Mohd.

For Respondent(s)

:

-

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

15/02/2021

1.

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the

order dated 04.07.2017 passed by Labour Court, Bhilwara

(hereafter “the Tribunal”) whereby petitioners’ application for

setting aside the ex parte order dated 11.02.2016 has been

rejected.

2.

The precise facts relevant for the present purposes are that

the respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute, which was

referred to the Tribunal and his claim ultimately came to be

allowed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 24.04.2013. The

respondent-labour was held entitled for reinstatement alongwith

all consequential benefit.

(2 of 3)

[CW-18658/2018]

3.

Against the above award dated 24.04.2013, the State is said

to have preferred a writ petition which is registered as SBCWP

No.9371/2017.

4.

Though in the above writ petition no interim order was

passed, the State for the reasons best known to it did not comply

with the award, for which the respondent-employee filed an

application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”), which came to

be allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11.02.2016, albeit

ex parte. The Tribunal directed that the payment of Rs. 9,96,014/-

being dues of the employee be made within a period of one month

of the date of the order.

5.

The State instead of making payment pursuant to such order

preferred an application for setting aside the order dated

11.02.2016, alongwith an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. It was inter alia,

stated that the State remained under confusion in wake of

pendency of various litigations between it and the respondent-

employee.

6.

The Court below vide order dated 04.07.2017, rejected the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so also the

application for setting aside the above ex parte order.

7.

Feeling aggrieved of above order dated 04.07.2017, the

State has approached this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction

under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the

legality and propriety of the order dated 04.07.2017.

8.

Ms. Bhansali, learned counsel for the State argued that the

Labour Court was not correct in allowing respondent’s application

under Section 33C(2) of the Act having noticed that writ petition

(3 of 3)

[CW-18658/2018]

against the award under consideration is pending. She submitted

that if State’s writ petition is allowed, it will be difficult nay

impossible to recover the amount.

9.

Heard and perused the record.

10.

That being the position, the Tribunal was left with no option

but to allow the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act and

also rejecting State’s application for setting aside the ex parte

order.

11.

There is no error or infirmity in the impugned order dated

04.07.2017. Writ petition is thus, dismissed.

12.

During the course of submission, Ms. Vandana Bhansali,

learned counsel for the State informed that the Tehsildar has

initiated recovery proceedings and has issued a kurki warrant.

13.

Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, though

the writ petition is dismissed, it is hereby directed that in case the

State deposits the requisite amount on or before 31.03.2021, the

recovery proceedings in furtherance of order dated 11.02.2