1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.871 of 2007 For Approval and Signature : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.M.PANCHAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN ====================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================================== Ram Chandra Mali - Appellant Versus Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur & Ors. - Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the appellant. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.M.PANCHAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Date : September 27, 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.M.PANCHAL) The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated August 29, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.3790/02 by which the prayer made by the appellant to set aside 2 the award dated July 24, 2001 rendered by the Labour Court rejecting the prayer made by the appellant to reinstate him in service with back wages, is refused. The appellant was appointed as Beldar on April 24, 1988 by the respondent no.3. It is his case that thereafter he was transferred in the office of respondent no.4 where he served from September 1, 1988 to January 31, 1989. The services of the appellant were terminated on January 31, 1989. For a petty long time, the appellant did not take any steps to challenge the order by which his services were terminated. However, for the first time in the year 1996, he raised an industrial dispute questioning legality of order by which his services were terminated. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to Labour Court, Udaipur. Before the Labour Court, the parties adduced evidence in support of their claims. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court concluded that the appellant had put in service of 107 days and was therefore not entitled to benefit of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence held that no case was made out by the appellant for grant of relief of reinstatement in service with back wages. Therefore, the Labour Court by award dated July 24, 2001 rejected the reference. Thereupon, the appellant invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.3790/02 and claimed the relief which is referred to earlier. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the 3 petition by judgment dated August 29, 2006 giving rise to the instant appeal. This Court has heard Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel for the appellant and considered the documents forming part of the petition. The plea raised by Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel for the appellant that it is admitted by witness Rajaram examined on behalf of the respondents that after the services of the appellant were terminated, other persons were engaged as labourers and therefore in view of breach of provisions of Section 25 G as well as 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award rendered by the Labour Court should have been set aside by the learned Single Judge, has no substance. It is relevant to notice that the reference was sought by the appellant after a period of seven years for which no plausible and acceptable explanation could be offered by him. Therefore the reference was liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the appellant in claiming appropriate reliefs. If the relief prayed for in statement of claim would have been granted, it would have upset the whole working of the respondent department and would have adversely affected those who are in service. Further, inspite of sufficient opportunity having been given, the appellant could not produce evidence before the Labour Court to establish his case that there was breach of provisions of Section 25 G and 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act. During the course of cross examination of witness Rajaram who was examined on behalf of the respondents, 4 a statement was elicited that after the termination of services of the appellant, labourers were employed by the department. The so called admission which was secured by the appellant is as vague as anything could be. It does not indicate that anyone was employed as Beldar after services of the appellant were terminated. There are different categories of labourers which could have been employed in the respondent-department. No evidence was adduced to show that other labourers were employed in the same category in which the appellant was working. Therefore, the so called admission made by the witness examined on behalf of the respondents would not establish the case of the appellant that breach of provisions of Section 25 G and 25 H was committed by the respondents. Further, no names of those who were employed after the termination of services could be brought on record. Having regard to the paucity of evidence on the record, this Court is of the opinion that it is difficult to conclude that there was breach of provisions of Section 25 G and 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act. On re-appreciation of evidence led by the parties, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the reference, made at the instance of the appellant. The learned Single Judge while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have re-appreciated the evidence nor could have interfered with the award rendered by the Labour Court when no error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out by the appellant. 5 The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to persuade this Court to take a view different than the one which is taken by the learned Single Judge on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the appeal which lacks merits, deserves dismissal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. [BHANWAROO KHAN ],J. [J.M.PANCHAL],CJ. Praveen