Bangali Colony, Chhawani Kota (Raj.) v. President, Panch Kaushal Vihrat, Bahu-Uddeshiy, Sahkari Samiti

: Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kailash Chander Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in LCR No.21/2018 (CIS 76/2018) by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner-workman has been rejected for want of evidence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Class-IV Employee with the respondent- department since 06.04.1983 and he was promoted as Assistant Manager on 14.07.1986 and thereafter, his services were confirmed by the Executive of the respondent-department on

10.09.1990. Counsel submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent-department on 16.10.2011 in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25-F, 25-G& 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act of [2025:RJ-JP:8923] (2 of 5) [CW-3417/2023] 1947"). Counsel submits that the petitioner has worked with the respondent-department with effect from 06.04.1983 till

16.10.2011 and he has worked with the respondent-department for more than 240 days in the precedent calendar year, when his services were terminated. Counsel submits that the petitioner raised an industrial disputes by way of filing an application under Section 2-A of the Act of 1947 before the Labour Court, but the same was rejected for want of evidence.

3. Counsel submits that there was communication gap between the petitioner and his representative. Counsel submits that when the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner, his representative informed through post for recording his evidence on 05.01.02023, which was received in the evening by him and immediately thereafter, on the next date, i.e., on

06.01.2023, he approached the Tribunal and filed an application along-with affidavit for recording his evidence. Counsel submits that prior to doing so, the impugned award was passed and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Counsel submits that looking to the controversy involved in the matter, the matter is required to be decided and adjudicated on its merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at appropriate amount of cost.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-department opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner- workman and submits that in spite of availing several opportunities, the petitioner failed to record his evidence and his evidence was closed on 05.01.2023 and the said order has not been assailed by him before this Court and the application [2025:RJ-JP:8923] (3 of 5) [CW-3417/2023] granting for leading evidence was submitted by the petitioner- workman on 06.01.2023, after passing of the impugned award, hence under these circumstances, the Labour Court became functus officio and there is no illegality in award passed by the Labour Court, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected.

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

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute against his termination order dated

16.10.2011 before the Labour Court. This fact is not in dispute that some dates were posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner-workman, but the said evidence was not led and finally, the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 05.01.2023 and the case was posted for next date, i.e., on 06.01.2023 and on the very next day, the claim submitted by the petitioner was rejected for want of evidence.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that on the very same day, when the impugned award was passed, an application was submitted by the petitioner-workman along-with an affidavit for granting him one last opportunity for leading his evidence, the said application was taken on record, but no opportunity was granted to the petitioner-workman because prior to filing of application, the impugned award was passed.

8. Filing of application on the very same day along-with affidavit shows the bona fide of the petitioner and the same cannot be treated as a fault being committed by him as the application was not an afterthought and it was not submitted on [2025:RJ-JP:8923] (4 of 5) [CW-3417/2023] the subsequent dates rather it was submitted on the very same day when the impugned award was passed.

9. It is worthy to note here that evidence of the petitioner was closed on 05.01.2023 and the impugned award was passed on the very next date, without giving any breathing time to the petitioner-workman for assailing the aforesaid order before any competent form of law. This fact cannot be overlooked that the petitioner was negligent in not producing his evidence before the Labour Court, but looking to the fact that the important questions of law and facts are involved with regard to challenge of the impugned termination order, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The cost amount would be paid by the petitioner- workman to the respondent-department within a period of one month from today. If the cost amount is paid by the petitioner- workman to the respondent-department, within the aforesaid stipulated time, the Labour Court is directed to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner-workman to lead his evidence on the date fixed by the Labour Court. It is made clear that if the petitioner-workman fails to lead his evidence on the date, fixed by the Labour Court, no further opportunity would be granted to him.

10. Since, the matter was decided in absence of evidence of both sides, the Labour Court would grant opportunity to the respondent-department for leading their evidence as well and will try to make all possible endavours to decide the dispute between the parties expeditiously, as early as possible, within a period of one year from the date of appearance before the Labour Court. [2025:RJ-JP:8923] (5 of 5) [CW-3417/2023]

11. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on

18.03.2025.

12. With the aforesaid observation, the impugned award dated

06.01.2023 stands quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

13. All application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /50