LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-56

BINA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Decided On January 14, 2005
BINA Appellant
V/S
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying, inter alia, that the over dated September 1, 2001 (Annex. 1), and the order dated November 15, 2002 (Annex. 3), passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Safaiwali on May 22, 1986 vide Order F/pa/commi/86-87/1443 on the basis of daily wages. She was given temporary appointment for a period of one month. THEreafter, vide order dated July 21, 1986, the appointment was given for 86 days. THE petitioner worked on different muster rolls from November, 1986 to December, 1987. THE services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of January, 1988.

(3.) AFTER receiving the notice of reference, the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court on October 25, 2000 and prayed for time to file the memo of claim. The petitioner failed to file the memo of claim and the next date February 23, 2001 was given for filing the same. On February 23, 2001, the counsel for the petitioner appeared on her behalf and prayed for time. The Court adjourned the matter to May 11, 2001 for filing the memo of claim. On May 11, 2001, the power was filed by another counsel on behalf of the respondent and the petitioner's counsel again sought time for filing the memo of claim. The matter was posted for July 25, 2001. On that date, the counsel was present, but the memo of claim was not filed and the last chance was given to file the same on August 14, 2001. On August 14, 2001, the Presiding Officer was not there and claim was also not filed and the matter was adjourned to September 1, 2001. On September 1, 2001, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner that the last chance may be given, because the petitioner has gone outside and the memo of claim was ready, but was not signed by the applicant, therefore, it could not be filed. The petitioner prayed for one more short adjournment, but the Court refused to grant the short adjournment and no-dispute reference was passed on September, 1, 2001.