CW 2449/10 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2449/10 Rajaram Jat Versus The Labour Court No.1, Jaipur & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 22/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. D.P. Pujari, for petitioner *** Petitioner-workman has assailed the order dt.5th October, 2009 whereby application filed by him for recalling of order dt.24th July, 2006 closing his evidence, was rejected by Tribunal by a detail order Ann.3. It appears from the record that a reference was made by the appropriate government in regard to his alleged termination in the year 1996 and after written statement was filed by respondents, the matter was fixed for evidence of workman on 13/02/2003. However, almost for three years, the petitioner failed to lead evidence in support of his claim, final opportunity was granted to him on 17/01/2006. However, when he did not appear, further opportunity was granted on 4th July, 2006 and finally vide order dt.11th November, 2006, his evidence was closed and after one year of passing of order application was filed by him on 4th July, CW 2449/10 [2] 2007 for recalling of order and seeking permission to lead evidence which has been rejected by Tribunal under order impugned dt.5th October, 2009 [Ann.3]. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a poor workman and since there was no proper communication with the lawyer/representative, as such, he could not appear to lead evidence in support of his claim and atleast one opportunity may be granted to him. In opinion of this Court, submission cannot be accepted for the reason that this is a matter of 1996 and almost for more than three years from February, 2003 to November, 2006 opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence and still if he fails to lead evidence in support of his claim, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting their application for recalling of the order vide order impugned dt.5th October, 2009. Submission made that there was no proper communication from his Counsel also cannot be noticed by this Court for the reason that it was the petitioner who was supposed to remain in touch with the Counsel to whom he engaged- CW 2449/10 [3] appearing in his behalf and if for more than three years he has not remained in touch with the Counsel, atleast his Counsel cannot be blamed for taking appropriate steps in the matter. After going through the order dt.5th October, 2009, this Court find no manifest error being committed by Tribunal which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2449CW10 22-02.doc