SBCWP No.2586/2007 – Udai Lal v. Labour Court, Udaipur & ors Date of order: 13.04.2009 1 of 2 S.B.C.W.P. No.2586/2009 Udai Lal v. Labour Court, Udaipur & others Date of Order: 13th April, 2009 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr K.R. Chaudhary, for the petitioner By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to correctness, validity and propriety of the award dated 14th February, 2007 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur. By the award aforesaid, the Labour Court while answering the reference made to it in the terms that - “Whether the workman Udai Lal Dangi was proper in raising industrial dispute after a lapse of eight years from the date of his termination? If yes, then whether his termination by the employer Registrar- cum-Dean, Maharana Pratap Agriculture University, Polytechnic Workshop, Udaipur with effect from 01st October, 1989 was just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?” Learned Labour Court, after considering entire evidence available on record, reached at the conclusion that the workman raised the dispute at belated stage without having any just reason. A finding is also given by the Labour Court that the statement of claim filed by the workman was not even signed by him. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court erred while rejecting claim of the petitioner SBCWP No.2586/2007 – Udai Lal v. Labour Court, Udaipur & ors Date of order: 13.04.2009 2 of 2 without appreciating the fact that the industrial dispute, at the first instance, was raised by the workman in the year 1991. To substantiate the contention that the dispute at the first instance was raised in the year 1991, learned counsel pointed out the statement of workman deposed before the Labour Court. True it is, the workman stated in the statement that he submitted a complaint in the year 1991, however, at the same time, he also stated that the complaint was not accepted by the Conciliation Officer and he has not kept any copy of said complaint. As a matter of fact, statement given by the workman is absolutely indefinite and on the basis of that, it can not be inferred that the workman ever raised any complaint in the year 1991. As such, the finding given by the Labour Court regarding raising of industrial dispute without any just reason at belated stage, does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court to exercise powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is, therefore, dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma