SAHAYAK ABHIYANTA Vs. SURAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Admit. Notices need not be issued.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claims were raised by the workmen relating to the termination of 1983 in the year 1998 and reference was made in the year 1999 after a period of almost 16 years. It is also pointed out that the labour Court vide award dtd. 20/8/2018 granted relief to the persons whose applications had been earlier rejected by the Labour Court vide order dtd. 6/6/2016, copy of the order-sheet dtd. 6/6/2016 has been placed on record that the LRs of Chhote lal had moved an application for bringing LRs on record but the court found that Chhotelal himself had expired even before the reference was made and thus the application of Chhotelal was rejected. Similarly, the application relating to LRs of Shaffi Mohd. was also rejected. Learned counsel submits that the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture Department and anr. reported in AIR 2016 SC 2984 lays down as under: