HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14299/2013 xksiky yky iq= Jh dtksM] vk;q& 45 o’kZ] fuoklh xkao o iksLV nsghr ftyk cwUnh ----Petitioner Versus 1- U;k;k/kh”k] Je U;k;ky; dksVk 2- mi “kklu lfpo] Je foHkkx] jktLFkku ljdkj] t;iqjA 3- vf/k”kk’kh vf/kdkjh] ckbZ eq[; ugj [k.M lh-,-Mh- dksVkA ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, Addl. GC Ms. Minakshi Jain, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in LCR No.8/1995 by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner against his impugned termination order dated 31.10.1983 has been rejected on a technical count of lack of jurisdiction as the petitioner was not working with Dai Mukhya Nahar Division CAD Kota. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Mate in the office of Executive Engineer, Dai Mukhya Nahar Division CAD Kota and he continued on the said post till 31.05.1983 and, thereafter, he was removed from service without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation. Learned counsel submits that the (2 of 4) [CW-14299/2013] services of the petitioner were terminated in utter violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). 3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and a reference was made by appropriate Government in this regard and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication. Learned counsel submits that due to typographical error, the word “Bai Nahar” was typed as “Dai Nahar” in the question of reference referred by the Competent Authority before the Labour Court. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court has rejected the statement of claim of the petitioner not on merits but on a technical count that the petitioner was not working in Dai Nahar Division. Learned counsel submits that when the specific case of the workman was that he was working with the respondent in Dai Nahar and if there was an error on the part of the competent authority in its reference, the workman cannot be allowed to made sufferer. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramprasad Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2010(1) WLC 713. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the reference was clear and specific and as far as the typographical error of “Dai Nahar” is concerned, the petitioner has failed to establish the fact on record that he worked with the respondent-authority at Dai Nahar Division. Learned counsels submits that an incorrect corrigendum was submitted by the (3 of 4) [CW-14299/2013] petitioner and the same was found to be forged and fabricated and considering these material facts, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award which requires no interference of this Court and the writ 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 statement of claim submitted by the petitioner before the Labour Court specifically mentions the word Bai Nahar Division, CAD, Kota where the petitioner worked w.e.f. 01.02.1977 till 31.10.1983. The reply of the aforesaid claim was submitted by the Executive Engineer, Bai Mukhya Nahar Division, CAD Kota, and no objection was taken in this regard by the Executive Engineer that the petitioner was not working in Bai Nahar. 7. It appears that while making the reference by the competent government due to typographical error or mistake, the word “Bai Nahar” was typed as “Dai Nahar” and on this count alone, the statement of claim furnished by the petitioner has been rejected. 8. It appears that the Labour Court has not gone through the averments of the claim petition and the reply furnished by the respondents before passing the impugned award. If the Labour Court was of the view that there was some error in the reference made by the appropriate Government, a clarification could have been sought but instead of doing so, the claim has been rejected on a technical count and not on merits of the case. 9. This Court in the case of Ramprasad (supra) has dealt with the similar identical situation where there was mistake in the (4 of 4) [CW-14299/2013] name of the workman in the reference and the mistake was not rectified by the Labour Court, hence under these circumstances, the workman has to approach this Court wherein appropriate corrections were made by this Court. 10. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has worked with the respondent in Bai Nahar Division, CAD, Kota and not at Dai Nahar Division, CAD, Kota. Since the matter has not been decided by the Labour Court on its merits, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for its adjudication on merits. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned award dated 11.02.2013 stands quashed and set aside. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 26.03.2025 and it is expected from the Labour Court to decide the claim petition on its merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the parties. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/77