[2025:RJ-JP:21007] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7542/2018 Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Ramadhar Jat, R/o Mandawar, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bharatpur 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 19/05/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 09.10.2015 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur (for brevity, 'learned Labour Court') in LCR No.07/1999 (627/2014) whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner/workman (for brevity, 'workman'), the statement of claim filed by him has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed the statement of claim stating therein that he was appointed as driver alongwith 22 other persons by the respondent-corporation on 01.08.1985; but, his services were retrenched by verbal order dated 04.09.1985. It was averred that despite his acquittal by the learned trial Court vide its judgement dated 31.01.1995 in a [2025:RJ-JP:21007] (2 of 3) [CW-7542/2018] criminal case registered against him under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, he was not reinstated in service. Alleging violation of the provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'Act of 1947') and Rule 78 of the Rules framed thereunder, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. The respondent-corporation in its reply, denying the averments made in the statement of claim, submitted that the workman continued for a period of 9 days only and there has been no violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim by its impugned award dated 09.10.2015. Assailing the award, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the workman is that after his retrenchment, as many as five persons, as described in para no.11 of the statement of claim, were employed as driver but, despite service of a registered notice, he was not re-employed which is in violation of the provisions of Section 25H of the Act and Rule 78 of the Rules framed thereunder. He submits that since, the learned labour Court has dismissed his statement of claim ignoring this important aspect of the matter, the award impugned dated 09.10.2015 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 09.10.2015 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:21007] (3 of 3) [CW-7542/2018] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While passing the award impugned, the learned Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the workman has failed to establish the contentions raised by him in the statement of claim. As a matter of fact, he led no evidence in support of the submissions made. Except a bald assertion in para no.11 of the statement of claim that after retrenchment of his services, as many as five persons were appointed as driver whereas, despite service of a registered notice by him, he was not re-employed violating the provisions of Section 25H and Rule 78, which were categorically denied by the respondent-corporation in its reply, no evidence was led by the workman to substantiate the same. In view thereof, this Court is satisfied that the learned Labour Court did not err in answering the reference against the workman and in dismissing his statement of claim. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/368