RAKESH YADAV Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the award dated 17.05.2000 alleging perversity in the award. It is stated that the Labour Court has failed to notice averments made by the petitioner in his statement of claim as well as in his statement on oath relating to retaining of persons junior to him in service while removing him. The Labour Court while passing the award has stated categorically that the petitioner has not made any averment in his statement of claim relating to three junior workman who were retained while service of the petitioner were dispensed with.

(2.) Learned counsel has taken this Court to the statement of claim in para 10 to assert his submissions. He also has taken this Court to para 13 wherein it is stated that persons junior to him were given appointment after removing the petitioner without giving any opportunity. However, without reading the said documents, the Labour Court proceeded to make observations as noted above. It is submitted that persons retained who are junior to the petitioner, their names have been mentioned in his statement of claim as well as on oath. It was binding upon the respondents to refute the same. However, the respondents have not refuted this position either in their statement or in their crossexamination.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not been clear in making his averments and the Labour Court has stated that there is no clear averment on part of the petitioner. And therefore, no fault can be attributed to the order passed by the Labour Court.