SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
SUBHASH CHAND YADAV AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
POLICE COMMISSIONER AND ANR – Respondent
CW 1627/2017



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1627 / 2017

1. Subhash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Deep Chand, Aged About 45

Years, 85- Bai Ka Bas, Teh- Chaumu, Jaipur

2. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Viswapal, Aged About 37 Years, Village-

Banar, PO-Niwaru, Dist.- Jaipur

3. Ram Swaroop Yadav S/o Shri Mangal Chand Yadav, Aged About

47 Years, Bagawas Via Renwal, Teh-Phulera, Dist.- Jaipur

4. Gopi Nath Parida S/o Shri Rajan Parida, Aged About 47 Years,

41-A, RDC Concrete, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur

5. Shri Ram Yadav S/o Shri Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Aged About 46

Years, Village Manda Bhonda, Teh- Chomu, Jaipur

6. Prem Chand Koli S/o Mishri Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Gandhi

Chowk Bhayana, Dist.- Bharatpur

7. Shri Ram Saini S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 34 Years,

Duraiya Colony, Village- Badagawa, Dist.- Jhunjhunu

8. Ram Lal Shah S/o Shri Brahm Dev, Aged About 30 Years, 41-A

RDC Concrete, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur

9. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Budh Sen Prasad, Aged About 29 Years,

Shakti Nagar, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur

10. Mahaveer Singh S/o Shri Manohar Singh, Aged About 41

Years, Village Sapedbadi, Teh.- Makrana, Dist.- Nagaur

11. Laxman Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 46 Years,

409-A Sanjay Colony, D Joshi Marg, Kalwar Road, Jaipur

12. Parvinder S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, Aged About 38 Years,

Village Sultana, Teh-Buhana, Dist.- Jhunjhunu

13. Ratanlal S/o Babulal, Aged About 46 Years, Dhobi Mand Ward

No.15 Chomu

14. Ramesh Chand S/o Hargun, Aged About 37 Years, V&P Panhori

Tehsil Deeg, Dist. Bharatpur

15. Muneshwar Kumar S/o. Niranjan Shah, Aged About 24 Years,

Village Mahada Post Bamdev, Thana Rajoun, Dist. Banka, Bihar

16. Seetaram S/o Kanharam, Aged About 47 Years, 28,

Durganagar, Harnathpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur

17. Mohanlal S/o. Bhuraram, Aged About 40 Years, V&P

Ashtikalan, Tehsil Chomu, Dist. Jaipur

18. Lakshman Singh S/o. Ram Singh, Aged About 45 Years, 409 A,

Sanjay Nagar D, Joshi Marg, Jhotwara Jaipur

19. Vijendra Singh S/o. Lakshman Singh, Aged About 30 Years,

Village Barol, Tehsil Malpura, Dist. Tonk

(2 of 4)

[CW-1627/2017]

20. Vijendra Singh S/o. Bhawani Singh, Aged About 38 Years,

Village Babai, Tehsil Khetari, Dist. Jhunjhunu

21. Babulal S/o. Bhuraram, Aged About 37 Years, Village

Mohanpura, Post Raghunathpura, Dist. Jaipur

----Petitioners

Versus

1. The Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur

2. The Station House Officer, Jhotwara Police Station, Jhotwara,

Jaipur

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Dev Krishna Purohit

For Respondent(s) :

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Order

07/02/2017

This writ petition is wholly misconceived. The prayer in the

writ petition is that the Police Commissioner, Jaipur and the SHO,

Police Station Jhotwara be directed not to take any coercive action

against the petitioners and compel the factory management to

take them back on duty and pay their due salary etc.

In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners are employees of a

factory owned by a private company M/s. R.D.C. Concrete India

Private Ltd. The factories owners are not allowing the petitioners

to enter the factory. In this connection, they have filed a civil suit

without impleading petitioners as party and obtained injunction

order against the contractor alleging that the petitioners are

engaged as workers through the contractor, whereas petitioners

(3 of 4)

[CW-1627/2017]

were never engaged through contractor and they are employees

of the company. The contract of the contractor itself came to the

end in the year 2014, therefore, the injunction order, cannot be

enforced against the petitioners. The police has no authority to

restrict the entry of the petitioners or right of the petitioners to

raise dharna or hold demonstrations.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top