[2025:RJ-JP:44730-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 757/2025 Malsingh Son Of Shri Ganpatsingh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 10, Alkapuri, Charan Nadi, Benar Road, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s. K.E.C. International Limited, Through Chief Manager, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Kaushik For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 07/11/2025 1. The appeal challenges to the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the award passed by the Labour Court had been challenged after first delay. While arguing the matter, learned counsel has invited our attention to the order passed by the learned Single Judge at the time when notices were issued in the writ petition. It would be apposite to quote the order dated 19.01.2017 for the purpose: "Counsel submits that the petitioner- wrokman initially joined service on 12.04.1977 and remained in establishment till 20.04.1987. Although there was a dispute for the intervening period from 1987 to 1991 but after the consent of the parties and willingness in granting permission to the workman to join service as being revealed from the ordersheet in the pending proceedings [2025:RJ-JP:44730-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-757/2025] before the Labour Court dt.02.05.1991 the workman joined service and although the reference was answered in the negative terms vide award dt.31.11.2000 but for all practical purposes, he was allowed to continue in service and retired in 2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. His grievance is that as regards award is concerned, for all practical purposes it has not been given effect to by the respondents and after he stood retired, at least he is entitled for the benefit for the effective services which he rendered from 1977 to 1987 and from 1991 to the date of his retirement. Issue notice to the respondents along with copy of this order as to why the writ petition be not disposed of, returnable within six weeks. Notices may be given 'dasti', if prayed" 2. Apparently, it is a case where this workmen-appellant had initially worked from 12.04.1977 up to 20.04.1987 whereafter his services were dispensed with. He raised the dispute before the Labour Court, while the dispute was pending, he was taken back in services on 02.05.1991 in terms of the order passed by the labour Court. He, therefore, continued and attained superannuation in 2013. In the meanwhile, the award was passed by the Labour Court on 31.11.2000, rejecting the reference. Learned counsel submits that the reference could not have been rejected and the appellant was entitled to claim from the intervening period from 1987 to 1991. 3. We find that claim of the appellant is wholly misconcieved when the order was passed by the Labour Court allowing him to rejoin and he rejoined on 02.05.1991. Ideally, initially the Labour Court should have closed the proceedings as the dispute stood to be conciled between the parties, any way, if the award was passed on 31.11.2000 in negative that too did not affect his service which continued till 2013. He, therefore, never raised an objection at the time of reinstatement for the period from 1987 to 1991. He [2025:RJ-JP:44730-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-757/2025] cannot turn around after having worked for almost 22 years after rejoining to claim benefit of three years prior to the same. There is no continuity provided while allowing the petitioner to join back on 02.05.1991, nor he raised the said claim, therefore, apart from the fact the award was passed by the Labour Court dated 31.11.2000 was challenged after more than sixteen years. We find that on facts too, no case is made out for claiming benefit of service from 1987 to 1991. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. All pending applications also stands disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ GAURAV/Diksha-17