[2025:RJ-JP:43875-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1039/2025 Tara Chand S/o Shri Pooran Mal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o D-63, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, Headquarters, Institutional Area, Paryavaran Marg, Jhalanadoongari, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Road No. 5, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Sikar Road, Jaipur (North), Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Udit Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 01/11/2025 1. Heard on application (No.855/2025) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal stating that he had never prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, nor for seeking an alternate remedy, as the alternate remedy cannot be said to be efficacious, however, learned Single Judge passed an order mentioning that the counsel wants to withdraw the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had made a representation seeking regularization and the respondents proceeded to terminate his services without passing [2025:RJ-JP:43875-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1039/2025] any order. The oral termination and claim for regularization were challenged before the learned Single Judge. 5. Admittedly, the appellant’s services have been dispensed with, though orally, without passing the order. The appellant is having the knowledge that since 14.05.2025, while his services stands terminated orally, he cannot be regularized also. The appellant is admittedly, a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), and would, therefore, be entitled to raise a dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act of 1947 directly to the Labour Court. 6. In view thereto, we direct that if any dispute is raised by the appellant before the concerned Labour Court within one month henceforth, the same shall be entertained by the concerned Labour Court. It would also examine all the issues raised herein and decide the same within a period of one year thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANAJY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/39