Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10038 (RAJ)

R S R T CORPORATION v. SAHABUDDIN AND ORS

CW/3769/2006 · 2025-03-07

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:10499] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3769/2006 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sahabuddin son of Shri Nasuriddin, Purani Tonk, Tonk. 2. The Judge, Labour Court-I, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.C. Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/03/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 15.04.2005 passed by the Labour Court-1, Jaipur in LCC No. 216/98, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’) has been allowed and the amount of wages have been determined pursuant to the award dated 16.01.1998 passed by the Labour Court. 2. It has been apprised at Bar that the services of the respondent were discontinued on 16.01.1968, and the termination order of the respondent was declared as null and void by the Labour Court in its award dated 16.01.1998 by which an order was passed for the reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 70% back wages. [2025:RJ-JP:10499] (2 of 2) [CW-3769/2006] 3. The aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4224/1999, however, the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2017. 4. Once the award passed by the Labour Court dated 16.01.1998 has been upheld by this Court, the Labour Court has not committed an error in allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. The order passed by the Labour Court appears to be just and proper, which requires no interference of this Court. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. 5. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /31