[2025:RJ-JP:33044] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5912/2008 Prem Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Arjun Lal Ji, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Khandar, Ward No.16, Near Purani Tehsil, Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge Labour Court, Bharatpur. 2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Acharya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/08/2025 1. Petitioner has assailed award dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), whereby a reference in relation to validity and propriety of termination of service w.e.f. 06.04.1989 has been answered against the petitioner. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed on 16.04.1985 on the post of ‘Handpump Mistry’, however despite completing more than 240 days in each calendar year, his services were terminated on 06.04.1989. After terminating services of the petitioner so many other persons holding the similar post were granted benefit of Semi Permanent Status, whereas services of the petitioner have been terminated arbitrarily and in violation of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). [2025:RJ-JP:33044] (2 of 3) [CW-5912/2008] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ignoring the violation of provisions of the Act of 1947, learned Tribunal has non suited the petitioner only on the ground that the dispute was raised after expiry of more than seven years, however, while arriving at such findings, the Labour Court is not considered the fundamental fact that there is no provision of limitation in the Act of 1947. Hence, he has prayed for quashing the award and for granting benefits of reinstatement as well as consequential benefits. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award dated 18.04.2007 has been passed passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) after appreciating the pleadings of the parties, material available on record and law prevailing at the relevant time and there is no infirmity in the impugned award, hence, no interference is called for in the award. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that although there was no specific provision at the relevant time in Act of 1947 for prescribing limitation to raise industrial dispute, yet even in such circumstances, the dispute was required to be raised within a reasonable period. In the instant case, the dispute has been raised after expiry of more than seven years and no justification, much less than reasonable causes, has been disclosed for raising the dispute with delay. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also indicates that in the impugned award, the claim of the petitioner has not only been rejected on the ground of delay, yet the learned Court below has also examined that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a limited period and on completion of terms of contract, [2025:RJ-JP:33044] (3 of 3) [CW-5912/2008] services of the petitioner were automatically terminated. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for both the parties and examined the record. 8. A factual finding has been arrived at by the learned Tribunal in award dated 18.04.2007 that the petitioner was appointed on the contract basis for a limited period and after completion of contract, his services were automatically terminated. Such factual finding has not been challenged by the petitioner, nor has he pointed out any manifest illegality or perversity in such factual finding. 9. That apart, no reasonable cause has been disclosed for raising the industrial dispute with a delay of seven years, hence learned Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the statement of claim of the petitioner after expiry of such long and unexplainable delay. 10. In view of above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award. Hence, no interference is made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/13