KANHAIYA LAL SHARMA v. THE JUDGE LABOUR COURT AND ANR
CW/6762/2004 · 2026-07-01
Inderjeet Singh
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9003 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9003 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:24155] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6762/2004 URN: CW / 10962U / 2004 Kanhaiya Lal Sharma S/o Shri Bhagwan Das, aged about 42 years by caste- Brahiman, Ex-Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hindaun Depot Resident of Village – Nangla Pilu, Post – Bhansa, Tehsil – Roopwas District – Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus
1. The Judge Labour Court, Bharatpur, (Rajasthan)
2. The Regional Manager at present Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bharatpur Depot, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi & Mr Harshit Dudawat.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 01/07/2026 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 28.07.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and the learned Labour Court held that the termination of the petitioner's services by the respondents was legal and justified. I have perused the material available on record, including the award dated 28.07.2004. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award after duly
[2026:RJ-JP:24155] (2 of 2) [CW-6762/2004] appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties. The learned Labour Court has categorically recorded a finding that there was no violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said findings are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/50