H.K. Pardasani v. State of Rajasthan Date of Order & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 2(s)
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. H.K. Pardasani, petitioner present in person. Mr. Khet Singh for Mr. J.P. Joshi, for the respondents. ... The petitioner raised a industrial dispute relating to non-payment of wages and also relating to his termination from service. The industrial dispute so raised was not entertained by the Conciliation Officer on the count that the petitioner being Medical Representative does not come within the purview of the definition of workman as given under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that at a subsequent stage the appropriate government under its notification dated 25.11.2008 has referred the dispute for its adjudication to labour court, Udaipur in following terms: “क(cid:2)(cid:3) श(cid:6) एच.क(cid:10) .प(cid:3)रद(cid:3)स(cid:3)न(cid:6) प(cid:16)त स(cid:19). श(cid:6) ब(cid:6).एम.प(cid:3)रद(cid:3)सन(cid:6) नन0 एम 0 आई 0 ज(cid:6)0 57 हर(cid:28)(cid:19)र(cid:28)न नगर, म(cid:3)त(cid:3) मन!दर भ#प(cid:3)ल (म.प.) ऐरर(cid:2)(cid:3) म(न(cid:10)जर/म(cid:10)ड*कल ररपज(cid:10)!+(cid:10)ट+(cid:19) ह#त(cid:10) ह(cid:16)ए शममक क. पररभ(cid:3)र(cid:3) म/ आत(cid:10) ह0? (cid:2)टद ह(cid:3)1, त# नन(cid:2)#जक जनरल म(न(cid:10)जर (एस.आर.) (cid:19)ग(र(cid:3) जम(cid:28)न र(cid:10)म(cid:10)ड*ज ड*(cid:19)(cid:6)जन, क(cid:10) ड*ल(cid:3) ह(ल3 क(cid:10) (cid:2)र मल0 “ए" म4(cid:19) स(cid:3)गर एस+(cid:10)+, *50 एन(cid:6).ब(cid:6)स(cid:10)+ र#* (cid:19)रल6 म(cid:16)मबई-400018 द(cid:3)र(cid:3) श(cid:6) एच.क(cid:10) .प(cid:3)रद(cid:3)सन(cid:6) क# टदन(cid:3)9क 9.10.2007 क# स(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:3) प:3क करन(cid:3) उचचत ए(cid:19)9 (cid:19)(र ह(? (cid:2)टद नह69 त# शममक ककस र(cid:3)हत क# प(cid:3)न(cid:10) क(cid:3) अचरक(cid:3)र6 ह(?” According to learned counsel for the respondents in view of the reference made by the appropriate government this petition for writ has 2 become infructuous. The petitioner while accepting the reference so made submits that the dispute so referred does not cover the issue with regard to payment of his due wages. He has further submitted that his termination was made in violation of provisions of Section 33 (1) of the Act of 1947 and that aspect too is not mentioned in the reference. So far as the question relating to termination of the petitioner from service is concerned, that is already under adjudication before the labour court, Udaipur in pursuant to the notification dated 25.11.2008, and the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him to challenge his termination from service. The question regarding the payment of wages for the period he remained in service of the respondent-employer can very well be raised by him by availing remedy under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act of 1947. In view of the factual position mentioned above this petition for writ is dismissed. Jgoyal ' (GOVIND MATHUR), J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2(s).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 09 Dec 2010. The bench was GOVIND MATHUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.