[2025:RJ-JP:43366] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7969/2025 Ajmer Cooperative Consumer Wholesale Bhandar Ltd., Through General Manager Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus Ramkishan Mali Son Of Shri Heeralal Mali, Resident Of 20, Veer Tejaji Colony, Tejaji Chawk, Lohagal Road, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena with Ms. Neha Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaishnav Saurabh Dharampal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/10/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner employer aggrieved from order dated 06.08.2024 in LCC No.05/2024 titled as Ramkishan Mali Vs. Ajmer Cooperative Consumer Wholesale Store Ltd., Ajmer and order dated 26.03.2025 in misc. application No.02/2025 in LCC NO.05/2024 passed by learned Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also ex parte order dated 25.06.2024 in LCC No.05/2024, against an ex parte proceeding. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring order dated 04.04.2007 in LCC No.29/2004 passed by same Tribunal submits that earlier an application preferred by respondent workman was dismissed under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court has refused to compute [2025:RJ-JP:43366] (2 of 4) [CW-7969/2025] emoluments from 01.11.2002 to 30.09.2004 in pursuant to award dated 04.03.2002. He further submits that one more application No.24/2002 under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act was filed by respondent and concealing the said fact, instant application is preferred for fresh computation and the trial court has seriously erred while computing emoluments from 21.04.1995. He also submits that without serving a notice upon respondent, the whole exercise was undertaken by the Tribunal. He further submits that after knowledge of ex parte proceeding, petitioner has filed an application for setting aside of ex parte proceeding and restoration of LCC No.05/2024 on original number and decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, but same was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent workman submits that he is not aware about any pendency of application No.50/2002 filed under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act and also order dated 04.04.2007 in LCC No.29/2004. He further submits that the interest of justice would be served, if the matter is remanded back after allowing the writ petition with direction to the trial court to dispose of the proceeding within a period of three months. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and also the material placed on record it is apparent on record that respondent workman has raised an issue of illegal termination before the Conciliation Officer and after failure, a reference is made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was decided by the [2025:RJ-JP:43366] (3 of 4) [CW-7969/2025] Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal on 04.03.2002 whereby an award is passed in favour of workman for reinstatement in the service along with backwages though thereafter there were litigation before this Court and same were referred by learned Tribunal in para No.2 of order dated 06.08.2024. 5. The material on record as referred by learned counsel for petitioner indicated that application preferred by petitioner with two other workman under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, registered as LCC No.29/2004 was dismissed on 04.04.2007 and while dismissing the application pendency of previous application No.50/2002 for determination of emoluments from 21.04.1995 to 31.10.2002 was pending before the Tribunal. 6. The material on record clearly indicated that petitioner has filed three different applications under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act and by order dated 06.08.2024 the trial court has determined back wages from 21.04.1995 to 18.08.2006. The material also indicated that wages of almost 90% of said period is already claimed in applications No.50/2002 and 29/2004 thus there is no justification on record about fresh calculation of wages from 21.04.1995 to 30.09.2004. 7. Considering the fact that the object behind introduction of Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act is to give executory power to the Labour Court cum Industrial tribunal and after computation recovery process has to be initiated therefore without keeping issue pending before this Court, it is appropriate to allow the writ petition and after setting [2025:RJ-JP:43366] (4 of 4) [CW-7969/2025] aside order dated 06.08.2024 and 26.03.2025, it is appropriate to remit back the proceedings to the Tribunal for fresh determination after providing opportunity of filing of reply and evidence to present petitioner. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, writ petition is allowed and order dated 06.08.2024 and 26.03.2025 are hereby set aside and LCC No.05/2024 is remitted back to the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal with direction to give an opportunity of filing reply to the petitioner employer and after opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties, decide the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months. 9. The parties are directed to appear before Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal on 17.11.2025. 10. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /21