Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Satish Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Devi … vs The Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. … on 14 July, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:25999]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10339/2025
Satish Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Devi Sahai Sharma, Aged
About 63 Years, Resident Of Plot Number 25, Barkat Nagar,
Phoolchand Ji Ka Bagh, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur
----Claimant/Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
The Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., "Parijatak" New Colony,
Panch Batti, Jaipur At Present The Fingrowth (Multi State) Co-
Operative Bank Limited Through Managing Director
----Defendant/Non-Applicant/Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Sharma, petitioner
present in person
For Respondent(s) :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
14/07/2025
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by
the learned Labour Court-First, Jaipur (for brevity “the learned
Labour Court”) whereby, the restoration application No.17/2024
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that an application filed by the
petitioner under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”) came to be dismissed in default
by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 07.07.2008.
Thereafter, he filed the restoration application which also came to
be dismissed in default on 01.02.2012. Thereafter, he filed the
instant restoration application for setting aside the order dated
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 10:04:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25999] (2 of 3) [CW-10339/2025]01.02.2012 and to restore the application. The aforesaid
application has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide
order impugned dated 09.05.2025.
Assailing the order impugned, the only contention advanced
by the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the
contents of Para No.1 of the para-wise reply filed by the
respondent-Bank to the application filed by him under Section 33
C (2) of the Act of 1947, is that since, the same gave him an
apprehension that his services would be terminated, he did not
attend the proceeding. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition
be allowed, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 be quashed and
set aside and either the restoration application or the application
filed by him under Section 33 C (2) of the Act of 1947 be restored.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the restoration application, learned Labour
Court has held that the application filed by petitioner on
06.06.2000 was dismissed on 07.07.2008 for want of prosecution
and the restoration application filed by him was also dismissed for
the same reason on 01.02.2012. It was observed that the main
contention raised in the instant application was that his advocate
assured him to take care of the case but, neither name of the
counsel was disclosed nor, it was reflected as to when he
contacted his counsel. The learned Labour Court also held that
after dismissal of the restoration application way back on
01.02.2012, the instant application was filed in the year 2024, i.e.,
with unexplained inordinate delay of about 12 years. It was
further held that no reason is furnished in the restoration
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 10:04:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25999] (3 of 3) [CW-10339/2025]
application as to why the applicant did not contact his counsel for
the entire intervening period.
This Court has gone through the findings recorded by the
learned Labour Court as also the material on record. There is not a
whisper of averment in the restoration application with regard to
his apprehension of termination of his services on the basis of
reply filed by the respondent-Bank to the application filed by him
under Section 33 C (2) of the Act of 1947, as canvassed before
this Court. Moreover, this Court does not find any such averment
in the Para No.1 of the para-wise reply so as to lead any such
apprehension. Be as it may, no such plea was raised either in the
restoration application or, before the learned Labour Court.
From the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, it is
apparent that the petitioner has been gross negligent in pursuing
the remedy before the learned Labour Court and in view thereof,
this Court finds no reason, under its limited supervisory
jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned
Labour Court based on material on record.
Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/23
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 10:04:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)