RAMCHARAN JATAV S/O SHRI MOOLIRAM JATAV v. ASSISTANT ENGINEER
SAW/432/2025 · 2025-05-22
Anand Sharma, Inderjeet Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16049 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16049 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:21653-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 432/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8506/2024 Ramcharan Jatav S/o Shri Mooliram Jatav, Resident Of Rendayal Gurjar Tehsil Gangapur, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Appellant Versus Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Sub Division Hindon, District Karauli. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order 22/05/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment dated 10.12.2024 whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the award dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court was dismissed. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination before the Labour Court after 18 years of his termination. However, the learned Labour Court considered the length of period of working days of the petitioner and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. The award dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge of this Court.
[2025:RJ-JP:21653-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-432/2025] We have perused the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in which relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner has raised the dispute after 18 years of his termination. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the same does not require any interference by this Court in this appeal. Hence, this appeal as well as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act both are dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /33