HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11388/2009 Prithvi Raj S/o Bhanwar Lal, Badi Basti, Pushkar ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge Labour Court, Ajmer 2. Pushkar Municipal Council, Through Its Chairman, Pushkar, Ajmer 3. Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Pushkar, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Resham Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Dy.GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal'), by which the claim petition filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred as 'workman') has been rejected. The aforesaid award was passed by the Tribunal as the petitioner failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages and his services were terminated without serving any notice and without paying any amount of compensation and without following the mandate contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). Counsel submits that an (2 of 4) [CW-11388/2009] industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner by way of filing a claim petition, but the same was dismissed for want of evidence of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the matter was posted before the Tribunal on 11.04.2004, and on that day, the other side sought time to submit certain documents and last opportunity was granted for the same, but no document was produced, hence, their opportunity for producing the document was closed, thereafter, the case was posted for recording the evidence of the workman on 03.09.2008, but the petitioner could not appear, hence, the case was posted for the next date i.e. 26.09.2008, but on account of death of a lawyer, the cross-examination could not be done, as the work was suspended due to condolence and case was posted for subsequent dates. Counsel submits that on the fateful day i.e. 15.12.2008, an opportunity was sought by the petitioner for producing the evidence, but on the very same day, the evidence was closed and the impugned award was passed. Counsel submits that neither the petitioner nor the respondent produced any evidence, even then, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact on the record that he worked with the respondents for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Counsel submits that such finding cannot be recorded by the Labour Court in absence of evidence of either side. Counsel submits that the matter be remitted back to the Labour Court by granting opportunity to both sides to do the needful, hence, under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed. (3 of 4) [CW-11388/2009] 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence, hence, under these circumstances, the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned award, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that against the termination order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by way of filing a claim petition before the Labour Court and the proceedings were pending for summoning the relevant record from the respondents, but the respondents failed to produce the same and finally the said opportunity of the respondent was closed on 12.12.2007 and thereafter, the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner. 6. It is true that the petitioner was casual on some of the dates and he did not appear for recording his evidence. At one point of time, he appeared, but his evidence could not be recorded on account of suspension of work due to condolence for lawyer's death and thereafter, the case was posted for 15.12.2008 and on that day, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and on the very same day, the award was passed. 7. The Labour Court has conducted these proceedings in a very short span of 3-4 months. The Labour Court has lost the sight of the fact that the Act of 1947, has been enacted by the Legislature for the benefits of the workmen. This Act has been enacted to give protection to the workman, but by (4 of 4) [CW-11388/2009] conducting the proceedings in such a hastily manner way and closing the evidence of the petitioner in a short span of three months and rejecting the claim petition of workman on the same day tantamounts to violation of process of law. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above the impugned award deserved to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to decide it afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 24.02.2025. 10. It is expected from the Labour Court to decide the claim petition expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year after appearance before the Labour Court. 11. In view of the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/58