Maholi, Tehsil And District Karauli v. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division

: Mr. Rohan Agarwal for Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 09/01/2025

1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-workman impugning the award dated 13.03.2020 passed in LCR No.1466/2014 (45/2008) by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, deciding the reference against the petitioner-workman and dismissing her claim on the ground of delay as also with a fact finding that the petitioner miserably failed to prove her employment and to render work for 240 days in a calendar year with the respondent.

2. As per pleadings of writ petition and from the perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the petitioner claimed to be appointed as Beldar on 01.01.1991 by the respondent and alleged her removal with effect from 01.01.1994 without making compliance of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was claimed by the petitioner that she rendered work for 240 days in a [2025:RJ-JP:1394] (2 of 4) [CW-353/2021] calendar year, prior to her removal, hence, it was incumbent upon the respondent to make compliance of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. After raising the dispute and on failure of the conciliation proceedings the following preference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication:- “D;k Jfedk Jherh ds'kUrh iRuh Jh yksgjs ekyh fuoklh vksvk;y egkSyh rglhy o ftyk djkSyh }kjk lsokfuo`fRr ds 13 o"kZ ckn fookn mBkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn gka rks D;k fu;kstd lgk;d vfHk;Urk] lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx mi[k.M fg.MkSu ftyk djkSyh }kjk Jfedk dks fnukad 01-01-1994 ls lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfedk fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks ikus dh vf/kdkjh gSA”

4. Before the Labour Court, after filing of statement of claim and reply, petitioner-workman as also the respondent-employer were granted opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective stand. Petitioner deposed her affidavit but did not produce any document. From the side of respondents, documents from Ex.M1 to M55 were produced on record. After considering the evidence of petitioner-workman and the record, the Labour Court has recorded a fact finding in para No. 9 which reads as under:- “9& ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ;k us Dyse esa vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fdlh Hkh dk;ZLFky dk o.kZu ugha fd;k gSA blh izdkj izkFkhZ;k us Dyse ds leFkZu esa eq[; ijh{kk ds :i esa izLrqr lk{; 'kiFk i= esa Hkh fdlh Hkh dk;ZLFky dk gh mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ;k ds Dyse o lk{; 'kiFk i= ls U;k;ky; esa ;g Li"V ugha gks ldk fd izkFkhZ;k us vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fdu&fdu dk;ZLFkyksa ij] fdl&fdl vof/k esa o fdrus&fdrus fnu dk;Z fd;kA bl izdkj ;g mi/kkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k us rF;ksa dks fNik;k gSA blh izdkj izkFkhZ;k ,d vksj rks ;g dg jgh gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ ds v/khu yxkrkj 240 fnol dk;Z fd;k gS] ogha nwljh vksj ;g mYys[k ugha fd;k fd mlus vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fdl&fdl dk;ZLFky ij dk;Z fd;k] tks fd izkFkhZ;k dk vizkFkhZ ds v/khu dk;Z djus dks lansfgr djrk gSA tcfd vizkFkhZ us bl ckr dk [k.Mu dj izkFkhZ;k dks [2025:RJ-JP:1394] (3 of 4) [CW-353/2021] vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fdlh Hkh dk;ZLFky ij fdlh Hkh vof/k esa ,d Hkh fnol dk;Z djus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA”

5. This Court finds that the petitioner prayed for and granted time on 30.07.2024 to produce the complete record of Tribunal, but no record has been produced by the petitioner.

6. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the fact finding recorded by the Labour Court, it is clear that it is a case where the dispute was raised by the petitioner-workman after a delay of 13 years in addition, petition remained miserably fail to establish her employment as Beldar with the respondent. The Labour Court, after examining the record, has recorded a clear cut fact finding that petitioner’s employment with respondent is not established. In the statement of claim as well, petitioner nowhere disclosed the place, period and the details of days of rendering work by her. No documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner to establish her employment and discharging work for 240 days in a calendar year prior to her alleged removal with effect from 01.01.1994. The Labour Court has observed that the statement of claim is wholly misconceived and accordingly the same was dismissed.

7. Counsel for the petitioner could not prove that the fact findings recorded by the Labour Court suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error which warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97], explaining the scope [2025:RJ-JP:1394] (4 of 4) [CW-353/2021] of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis supplied)

9. As a result, instant writ petition is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed.

10. Any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. SOURAV /20 (SUDESH BANSAL),J