Jeevanlal Khatik, At Present Tehsildar, Pachpahar, Distt. Jhalawar v. Abdul Jabbar S/o

Shri Abdul Jabbar S/o Shri Abdul Gaffar, R/o Mangalpura Line Police Road, Jhalawar (Raj) Versus ----Petitioner The Tehsildar, Pachpahad, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G. S. Gill, AAG with Mr.S. P. Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr.Arvind Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/02/2025

1. Both these writ petitions have been submitted against the award dated 09.04.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Kota (for short, “the Labour Court”) by which the statement of claim submitted by the workman has been allowed and the petitioner- State has been directed to reinstate him back in service.

2. The contents of the petitions indicate that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman against Tehsildar, Pachpahar, District Jhalawar before the Labour Court alleging therein that he was engaged as Driver on 13.11.1998 and he worked on the said post till 12.05.2001 and his services were terminated in violation [2025:RJ-JP:7291] (2 of 4) [CW-3113/2009] of the mandatory provision, contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act of 1947"), it was also pleaded by the workman before the Labour Court, that he worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year, hence his order of termination was illegal.

3. Notice of the aforesaid claim was sent to the respondents against which a reply was submitted by the employer, but since the employer failed to appear before the Labour Court on several occasions, hence, under these circumstances, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him and finally the ex-parte award dated 09.04.2008 has been passed by issuing directions to the employer to reinstate the workman back in service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Tehsildar submits that the Tehsildar is discharging the sovereign function and the functions discharged by him do not fall within the definition of employer, hence, under these circumstances, the industrial dispute raised by the workman was not tenable before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that this fact could not be argued forcefully before the Labour Court on account of his absence and accordingly, the impugned ex-parte award came to be passed. Counsel submits that the legal issue raised before this Court is required to be adjudicated by the Labour Court, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. Hence, under these circumstances, the matter be remanded back to the Labour Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposed the arguments raised counsel for the petitioner and submits that in spite of having ample opportunity to defend his case, the petitioner-Tehsildar failed to appear before the Labour Court, [2025:RJ-JP:7291] (3 of 4) [CW-3113/2009] hence, under such circumstances, the Labour Court was left with no other option except to initiate ex-parte proceeding against the petitioner-Tehsildar and accordingly, it passed the impugned ex- parte award. Counsel submits that the Labour Court has passed a well reasoned award which requires no interference of this Court and the petition filed by the Tehsildar is liable to be rejected and the petition filed by the workman for implementation of the award dated 09.04.2008 may be allowed and a direction is liable to be issued to the respondents to implement the award in favour of the workman.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman by way of filing a claim petition under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 before the Labour Court, wherein it was pleaded by him that he was engaged on the post of Driver by the Tehsildar on 13.11.1998 and he continued on the said post till

12.05.2001 and thereafter, his services were terminated. The case of the workman before the Labour Court was that before terminating his services, the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with. The workman brought this fact on the record that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year in the Office of Tehsildar.

8. The award indicates that the respondents were served notice and they too submitted reply against the statements of claim submitted by the workman, but no evidence was led on the dates fixed by the Labour Court, hence, under these circumstances, ex- parte proceedings were initiated against the Tehsildar and finally, [2025:RJ-JP:7291] (4 of 4) [CW-3113/2009] the ex-parte impugned award has been passed. Now, a question of law has been raised with regard to the fact that "whether the Tehsildar discharged the sovereign function on behalf of the State and whether a person engaged through Tehsildar falls within the definition of 'workman' or not?"

9. This question of law is required to be adjudicated by the Labour Court by affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides and thus, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the Labour Court.

10. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 09.04.2008 passed by the Labour Court stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding the same afresh, after considering the submissions and evidence led by both the sides and thereafter to pass fresh order expeditiously as early as possible, preferable within a period of six months, from the date of appearance before the Labour Court.

11. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 11.03.2025.

12. Before parting with this order, the petitioner-Tehsildar is directed to pay a cost amount of Rs.20,000/- to the workman prior to the next date of appearance before the Labour Court. It is made clear that if the cost amount is not paid to the workman, prior to the date of appearance before the Labour Court, the award dated 09.04.2004 will come into effect automatically.

13. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma /216-217 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J