[2025:RJ-JP:848] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9120/2016 Banwari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Through Shri R.c. Jain, 80, Bajrang Vihar, Near Gopalpura Railway Phatak, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Tonk Road, Jaipur 2. District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dausa ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/01/2025 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner. 2. Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner-workman way back on 06th July, 2016, impugning the award dated 20.04.2016, whereby and whereunder, the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur decided the reference in negative against the workman and dismissed his claim. 3. From perusal of the order-sheets, it transpires that the writ petition has not been pursued by and on behalf of petitioner after institution and today as well no one has put in appearance and hence, in such circumstances, the writ petition is being considered and decided on merits. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as part time employee on daily wages as Animal Attendant at Veterinary Hospital, Dwarapura, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa and he raised a dispute of removal from service by the respondent No.2 w.e.f. 19.03.2000 without giving any notice or [2025:RJ-JP:848] (2 of 3) [CW-9120/2016] wages in lieu thereof and without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The Labour Court, having considered the statement of claim, reply and the evidence adduced by parties, recorded a fact finding that petitioner himself abandoned his duty and did not turn up to render service nor requested for his reinstatement before the employer before raising dispute. Such fact findings have been recorded after appreciation of evidence and inconformity to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay S. Sathaye Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 253]. The Labour Court has observed that when it is established that the petitioner-workman has voluntarily abandoned the service, he is not entitled for any relief. 6. Having gone through the fact findings of the Labour Court, passed in the impugned award, this Court does not find any perversity and jurisdictional error therein and the impugned award does not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support thereof, judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97], explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited [2025:RJ-JP:848] (3 of 3) [CW-9120/2016] prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. As a result, instant writ petition is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/23