[2026:RJ-JP:27578] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11585/2026 URN: CW / 25641U / 2026 Manager Pankaj Febricaters 75, Road No. 5 Vishvakarma Industrial Area Jaipur. ----Petitioner/Applicant Versus Suraj Bali Prasad S/o Shri Shivnath Prasad, R/o 176, Devika Nagar Road No. 17, Vishvakaram Industrail Area Jaipur. ----Respondent/Non-applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma (Ganthola) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 10/07/2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur in LCR No. 61/2017 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for taking the documents on record was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that as per the contents of the application filed by the Labour Inspector before the Additional Labour Commission, Jaipur, the respondent filed a complaint letter on 08.12.2014 alleging that he was appointed on the post of welder/cutter at the office of the petitioner on 01.10.1991, however, despite his services being of permanent nature, when he reported for his duty on 01.10.2013, he was orally terminated from the services. Subsequently, the negotiations conducted between the parties under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes [2026:RJ-JP:27578] (2 of 4) [CW-11585/2026] Act, 1947 came to be declared as unsuccessful on 09.06.2015 and the report for the same was sent to the state government. Pursuant to this, the statement of claim and reply to the same was filed by the respondent and the petitioner respectively. 3. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 14.10.2025 dismissed the application dated 12.08.2025 which was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to produce photocopy of certain documents in relation to the PF deduction of the respondent as well as the application dated 09.09.2025 seeking permission to verify the documents. The said applications were dismissed on the ground of not bearing official certification by a competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application on 10.11.2025 for the same purpose, which again came to be dismissed by the learned labour Court vide its order dated 27.02.2026. 4. Pursuant to this, the learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 29.05.2026 dismissed another application filed by the petitioner on 19.05.2026 for taking the Employee's State Insurance (for short, 'ESI') contribution documents on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been pending since 2017 and till 2023, no progress was made in the case, post which, the same was transferred to the learned Labour Court No. 2, thus, no delay has been committed by the petitioner in filing application for taking the ESI documents on record and the said documents are necessary for adjudicating the present case. [2026:RJ-JP:27578] (3 of 4) [CW-11585/2026] 6. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the material made available on record. 7. As per the evidence appraised by the learned Labour Court below, the petitioner filed the ESI contribution returns for the years 1997-2011 and based on the same, claimed that the respondent's employment began on 01.09.2005. It is a settled fact that the actual date of appointment cannot be determined based on the ESI contribution returns as the same can be filed by the employer later on in bulk as well. Meaning thereby, it is not definite that at the time of the appointment of the respondent- employee, ESI contribution is necessarily deducted from his salary and deposited by the petitioner-employer. Further, as per the facts on record, there appears to be a discrepancy between the Form No. 6 present on record and the amount of deductions mentioned by the petitioner, thus, the ESI documents cannot be considered as essential documents for establishing the respondent's date of appointment. 8. In the present case, despite the rejection of his earlier applications for summoning the PF documents, the petitioner again filed an application for summoning the ESI documents before the learned Labour Court. The said documents were already present in his jurisdiction since the very beginning, however, no mention of the same was made in the reply filed by him. Therefore, filing the said application at this stage, when the petitioner's evidence have already been completed, appears to be a delay tactic on the part of the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:27578] (4 of 4) [CW-11585/2026] 9. On consideration of the facts of the case and the findings given by the learned Labour Court, the Court finds no ground to interfere in the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the civil writ petition filed by the petitioners has no force and is accordingly dismissed. 11. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 34/Ashish Kumar