HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5963/2009 Chhittar Singh son of Shri Sohan Singh Rajput, aged about 53 years, R/o Village Kishorepura, Tehsil Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sikar. 2. Regional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Neem-Ka- Thana, District Sikar. 3. The Judge, Labour Court No.2, Shram Kalyan Kendra, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR Case No.1130/1998, by which the statement of claim of the petitioner has been rejected on a technical count that in the reference the date of termination of the petitioner is mentioned as June, 1989 while in the statement of claim, the petitioner has mentioned the date of his termination as 01.07.1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager on 01.06.1986 and continued to work on the said post till 30.06.1989 and thereafter, his services were terminated. Counsel submits (2 of 3) [CW-5963/2009] that an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer, however, the conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication of the industrial dispute between the parties. Counsel submits that in the reference, date of termination was not mentioned only the month i.e. June, 1989 was mentioned. Counsel submits that in fact the petitioner worked till 30.06.1989 and he was not allowed to work w.e.f. 01.07.1989, that is why he has mentioned the date of termination as 01.07.1989 in the statement of claim submitted before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that the Labour Court should have decided the matter on its merits instead of rejecting the same on the said technical point. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent and this fact has not been disputed. The dispute is with regard to the date of termination from service. 5. Be it in the month of June or July, 1989, the Labour Court was expected to decide the matter on its merits, rather than rejecting the statement of claim on a technical point. 6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned award dated 17.02.2006 stands (3 of 3) [CW-5963/2009] quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for its fresh adjudication on its merits. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 15.04.2025. 8. Needless to observe that all possible endeavours would be made by the Labour Court to decide the dispute expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 18 months from the date of appearance of the parties. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/100