Commissioner J D A And Anr vs Ramavtar Sharma (2025:Rj-Jp:31055) on 11 August, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Commissioner J D A And Anr vs Ramavtar Sharma (2025:Rj-Jp:31055) on 11 August, 2025

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2025:RJ-JP:31055]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9184/2018

1.       Commissioner        Jaipur       Development              Authority,    Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       Secretary,      Jaipur        Development             Authority,        Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
Ramavtar Sharma S/o Shri Narsingh Sharma Through Shri M.f.
Beg, Thakur Boraj Ka Rasta, Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Samant
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

11/08/2025

On 13.05.2025, this Court passed the following order:-

“This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the award
dated 26.09.2017 passed by the learned Labour
Court-I, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) in LCR
No.23/2007 whereby, while answering the reference
in favour of the respondent/workman (for brevity,
‘workman’), a direction has been issued to the
petitioners/employer to reinstate him back in service
with its continuity and 50% back wages and
emoluments.

A perusal of the findings recorded by the
learned Labour Court vide award reveals that the
same are based on appreciation of the evidence led
by the respective parties.

(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 10:04:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:31055] (2 of 3) [CW-9184/2018]

Contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the workman did not produce any
appointment order on record to demonstrate that his
services were engaged on 01.06.1991, is
misconceived and does not merit acceptance
inasmuch as their witness- Shri Anand Kumar, the
Executive Officer, has categorically admitted during
his cross-examination that he was engaged on
01.06.1991 on muster roll. Learned Tribunal has
further observed, on the strength of experience
certificates submitted by the workman as Ex. W2,
W3, W4 issued by the officials of the petitioners
authority, that he has rendered his services with
effect from 01.06.1991.

The second submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that services of the respondent
were hired through a contractor; but, learned
Tribunal had held that they have miserably failed to
substantiate this submission rather, their witness-
Shri Anand Kumar has admitted during his cross-
examination that no such document was submitted to
demonstrate that respondent’s services were hired
through a contractor.

Further, findings of the learned Tribunal reveal a
very disturbing feature. In reply to the application
filed by the workman to produce relevant muster rolls
and the register, its Executive Officer-Shri Anand
Kumar has specifically stated on oath that the muster
rolls could not be produced from the year 1992-1997
on account of their unavailability whereas, during his
cross-examination, he has stated that he has seen
the muster rolls for the years 1993, 1994, 1995,
1996 and 1997. Prima facie, it appears to be a case
of grave offence of perjury.

Even after arguing at length, learned counsel for
the petitioners is not able to satisfy this Court that

(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 10:04:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31055] (3 of 3) [CW-9184/2018]

findings of the learned Tribunal vide award impugned
dated 26.09.2017 suffer from any such perversity or
patent illegality so as to warrant interference of this
Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article
227 of the Constitution of India. He, however, prays
for and is granted a week’s time to complete his
instructions.

List the matter on 20.05.2025 at top of the list
as prayed.”

On 20.05.2025, this Court passed the following order:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for
and is granted four weeks’ further time to complete
his instructions in terms of the order dated
13.05.2025.

List the matter on 08.07.2025 as prayed.”

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

could obtain no instructions despite his best efforts and lapse of

almost three months and has nothing to add on merits of the

case.

In view of the aforesaid, taking into consideration the order

of this Court dated 13.05.2025, this writ petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/59

(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 10:04:06 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)