The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by a former part-time Class-IV employee against a Labour Court award rejecting his claim and the order refusing to recall it (paras 1, 9). No limitation period applies to raising an industrial dispute, but stale claims ought not to be entertained without a satisfactory explanation; he raised his dispute ten years after his 1994 termination and explained nothing (paras 5, 7).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the convictions of three appellants, sentenced to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act and the IPC (paras 1, 53). Giving the benefit of the ossification test's margin of error to the accused, it held that the victim was not proved to be a minor; it found the forensic samples unreliable owing to unexplained delays, and her testimony not of sterling quality (paras 42, 44, 47, 52).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition claiming that a land acquisition under the 1894 Act, made by an award of 23.06.1989, had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act (paras 1, 7). Following the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, it held that the compensation deposited in the civil court on 26.05.1998 took the case outside Section 24(2), and allowed the heirs to seek 25% developed land by a representation (paras 5-9).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a claim to compassionate appointment by a man who said a police employee had adopted him before his death in 1997 (paras 1-3, 10). The record, including his 2002 school certificate and the widow's affidavit, showed the adoption took place only in 2002, after the death, and an adoption made after the employee's death confers no right to compassionate appointment (para 10).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed 24 awards of the Insurance Ombudsman, Jaipur, which had allowed an exporter's marine cargo claims for silver jewellery consignments lost in post to New York, and remitted them for fresh decision (paras 2, 41-42). The Ombudsman had not examined whether the insurance certificates were obtained after the parcels had reached the US Import Office, a question going to the existence of the insured risk; the Court made no finding of suppression (paras 30, 32, 36).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to condone the State's 349-day delay in appealing a decree for compassionate appointment, holding that routine inter-departmental file movement, legal opinions and approvals are not 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (paras 16, 24-25). Following Living Media, it dismissed the appeal in limine and left the State free to act against the officials responsible and frame an SOP on limitation (paras 20, 30-32).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a Labour Court award reinstating a dairy workman removed in 1991 over the alleged theft of 25 tins of ghee. Although the domestic inquiry had been held fair, the inquiry officer's findings rested on no legal evidence and were perverse, so the Labour Court rightly interfered (paras 24-25). The employer's writ petition was dismissed and the workman's allowed to the extent of 50% of the back wages (paras 30-32).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR for forgery and cheating against a Sarpanch, registered on the complainant's second complaint after his first complaint on the same allegations had been dismissed under Section 203 CrPC (paras 6-7, 9-10). Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions on second FIRs, it held that registration of a second FIR by the same complainant on the same facts is not permissible (paras 8-9).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a Manager (Operations) whose duties were managerial, including control over vendor selection and the business affairs of his area, was not an 'employee' under Section 2(5) of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (para 16). The authority under Section 28A therefore had no jurisdiction to set aside his dismissal and order reinstatement; its order was quashed, leaving him free to pursue other remedies (paras 17-18).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a petition under Section 528 BNSS filed directly against a judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable, because a statutory appeal lies against that judgment (paras 2, 6). It distinguished Rekha Sharad Ushir, where a cognizance order had been set aside, since a full trial had taken place here (paras 4-5), and left all objections to the appeal (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the mere existence of other criminal cases against an accused is not, by itself, a conclusive ground to deny bail; antecedents must be weighed with the other relevant factors (paras 5-7). Noting acquittals in half of 52 cases, custody of over eleven months with the prosecution evidence not yet begun, and a seven-year maximum sentence, it granted bail in an Arms Act and Explosives Act case on stringent conditions (paras 7, 10-13).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Tribunal order that had quashed a doctor's suspension, made in contemplation of an inquiry into a workplace sexual-harassment complaint, only because no charge-sheet was served within three months. Ajay Kumar Choudhary requires review and reasons to extend a suspension, not its automatic quashing; the challenge was premature, and such cases call for caution (paras 30-33). The suspension was revived (para 36).