[2025:RJ-JP:37745] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8465/2019 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through General Manager Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, RSRTC Vaisali Nagar Depot, Near Chomu House, Pari. Marg, Jaipur. 3. Appellate Authority, RSRTC, Head Office Chomu House, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Ramjilal S/o Shri Srichand Through Shri Sitaram Sharma, Labour Advisor S-II, Near Tagore School, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr. B R Rana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 16/09/2025 Although, the matter comes up on an application (1/2025) filed by the respondent-workman seeking vacation of ex parte interim order dated 14.05.2019; but, with the consent of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition is heard on its merit at this stage. Under challenge in the writ petition is the award dated 27.03.2018 passed by learned Labour Court-I, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned Labour Court’) in LCR No. 216/2008 whereby, while answering the reference in favour of the respondent-workman (for brevity, ‘the workman’), the punishment order dated 30.11.1982 [2025:RJ-JP:37745] (2 of 3) [CW-8465/2019] has been quashed and set aside and he has been held entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Assailing the award, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Labour Court erred in partly allowing the claim petition ignoring that the workman has raised the industrial dispute with delay. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated 27.03.2018 be quashed and set aside and the statement of claim be dismissed. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman submits that the punishment order dated 30.11.1982 was subjected to challenge by way of a civil suit; but, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India holding such suit not to be maintainable, he withdrew the same and raised the industrial dispute. He submits that in view thereof, there was no delay in raising the dispute. Learned counsel submits that, even otherwise, considering the issue of delay, the learned Labour Court has modified the relief and awarded him a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of reinstatement with consequential benefits. Heard. Considered. Contention of the workman in his statement of claim that punishment order was initially subjected to challenge by way of a civil suit which was later on withdrawn in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India holding such suit not maintainable and thereafter approaching the Conciliation Officer, has not been rebutted by the petitioners. However, the dates on which the suit was withdrawn and on which [2025:RJ-JP:37745] (3 of 3) [CW-8465/2019] the workman has approached the Conciliation Officer, are neither part of the record nor, either counsel is able to specify. In the aforesaid factual context, I do not find it to be a case of inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute so as to non-suit the workman only on this count. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the learned Labour Court has already moulded the relief taking into consideration the delay aspect. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/60