[2025:RJ-JP:33241] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3745/2007 Dhara Ram S/o Shri Bhola Ram, aged about 45 years, Ex- Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Banswara Depot, R/o Village Post Falaka, Tehsil Jaitaran, Distt. Pali (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur through its President Officer. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Banswara Depot, Banswara (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/08/2025 1. The petitioner-workman has assailed order dated 20.02.2007 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tribunal) whereby the application under Section 33(2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as '1947') filed by the respondent-Management has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receiving notices of the application, the petitioner-workman filed reply to the application (Annex-4) wherein specific objection was raised with regard to maintainability of the application on the ground that as per the proviso appended to of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, the application was required to be filed on the same date on which order is passed as well as the workman was [2025:RJ-JP:33241] (2 of 3) [CW-3745/2007] also required to be paid full wages along with admissible allowances, which have not been paid by the respondent- management to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although such objections have been taken note of by the learned Tribunal in para 2 of order dated 20.02.2007, yet while giving finding in para 6, it has been recorded that no such objections have ever been raised by the petitioner-workman. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that non-consideration of such objections has caused grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, hence the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- management, while defending the order impugned, has submitted that learned Tribunal has passed the order on the basis of pleadings of the parties, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time, in which there is not infirmity and illegality, hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner does not require of any interference. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. It is settled proposition of law that while deciding any application, the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is required to deal with and consider each and every objection raised by either party. In the instant case, the objection raised by the petitioner- workman was with regard to maintainability of application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 which goes to the root of the matter. Without deciding such objection, no effective order on [2025:RJ-JP:33241] (3 of 3) [CW-3745/2007] application could have been passed by the learned Tribunal. In the instant case, even after taking note the specific objections raised by the petitioner-workman, no finding whatsoever has been recorded rather conjectural finding has been recorded that such objection has not been raised. Such observation is self contradictory for the reason that, firstly objections were specifically raised by the workman in reply to the application, and secondly such objections have also been recorded by the Tribunal itself in para 2 of the order in question, yet while giving findings in Para 6 of the order, such significant objections have been ignored. 8. In view of above, the order dated 20.02.2007 passed by learned Tribunal is apparently erroneous and is, hereby, quashed and set-aside. However, the matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal for deciding afresh, after taking into consideration all the objections raised by the petitioner workman by giving a reasoned finding thereupon. Since, the matter pertains to an order passed by learned Tribunal in the year 2007, therefore, learned Tribunal is expected to decide the matter expeditiously, but not later than one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed in view of aforementioned directions. 10. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/7