[2025:RJ-JP:31919] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8667/2018 M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exporters Khwasji Ka Bag, Amer Road, Jaipur Through Partner Surendra Nath Kapoor ----Petitioner Versus Dineshwar Singh Son of Late Shri Jagmohan Singh, Resident Of Raju Washing Center, Plot No. 51, Gatore Road, Brahampuri, Jaipur Through Bhawani Singh Bhati, Labour Consultant, 18, Shivpuri Colony, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 14/08/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur (for brevity “the learned Labour Court”) in LCR No.134/2009 whereby, while answering the reference in favour of the respondent-workman and setting aside the retrenchment order dated 01.12.2008, a direction was issued for his reinstatement with continuity in service and complete back wages. The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed the statement of claim stating therein that he was appointed with the petitioner-institution on 10.11.1995 as Foreman and w.e.f. 01.12.2008, he was not permitted to join the duties on the pretext that the petitioner-institution was going to be closed. The [2025:RJ-JP:31919] (2 of 3) [CW-8667/2018] workman examined himself and submitted documentary evidence in support of his claim. No evidence was tendered in defence. The learned Laour Court, vide award impugned dated 16.02.2016, answered the reference in terms as stated hereinabove. Assailing the award, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the workman has admitted, in his letter, of using malpractice which disentitled his continuation in service. He submits that under an ill-advise, it could not lead its defence evidence. He, therefore, prays that the award impugned may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Labour Court for decision afresh permitting it to lead defence evidence. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman, opposing the prayer and supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court vide award impugned dated 16.02.2016, submits that since, the petitioner did not choose to lead any defence evidence, it cannot be permitted to do so at this stage. He further submits that a review application filed by the petitioner seeking an opportunity to lead evidence in defence was also dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 10.01.2018. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While answering the reference in favour of the workman and directing his reinstatement, the learned Labour Court has held, after appreciation of the evidence on record, that the workman was able to establish that he was employed by the petitioner- institution on 10.11.1995 and was not permitted to do his duty w.e.f. 01.12.2008. It was further held that the petitioner could not [2025:RJ-JP:31919] (3 of 3) [CW-8667/2018] justify retrenchment of the workman. The learned Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner-institution did not object the reinstatement of the workman. All these factual findings are not subject-matter of challenge before this Court; rather, the only contention is that under an ill-advise, the petitioner could not lead any defence evidence and therefore, while quashing the award dated 16.02.2016, an opportunity may be afforded to it to lead the defence evidence. It is not case of the petitioner that under an order of the learned Labour Court or for any other reason beyond its control, it was prevented from leading the defence evidence. If the petitioner did not choose to lead any defence evidence on its own, the prayer made before this Court cannot be countenance. Moreover, an application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the award dated 16.02.2016 with a prayer to permit it to lead defence evidence has been rejected by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 10.01.2018. Even otherwise, when the petitioner did not object to reinstatement of the workman, it is beyond comprehension as to why it wants to lead any defence evidence at this stage. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/70