The Supreme Court opposed the repeated refusal by the Rajasthan government to implement an award which was passed by the labour court in matter pertaining to a part-time worker in 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A bench comprising of Justice\u00a0Vikram Nath\u00a0and\u00a0Justice Satish Chandra Sharma\u00a0said that the labourer had to keep litigating the matter for around 22 years as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench called it extremely unfortunate that the State of Rajasthan has been harassing the poor litigant, who was extended benefits by the Labour Court in the year 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
TApex Copurhe State’s appeal against a December 8 Rajasthan High Court order was dismissed by the Apex court, thus, dismissed in the matter while ordering the Rajasthan government to pay \u20b910 lakhs as costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The labourer was reinstated back to service by a labour court in 2001. The State’s plea challenging the labour court award was later dismissed by the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The order was passed and thethe labourer had to keep moving courts seeking the enforcement of the labour court award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court benches however upheld the payment to be made to the labourer by the State, leading to the instant appeal before the top court by the Rajasthan government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal which has ordered the State to pay \u20b910 lakhs as costs to the labourer within four weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court opposed the repeated refusal by the Rajasthan government to implement an award which was passed by the labour court in matter pertaining to a part-time worker in 2001. A bench comprising of Justice\u00a0Vikram Nath\u00a0and\u00a0Justice Satish Chandra Sharma\u00a0said that the labourer had to keep litigating the matter for around 22 years as a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":331795,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,64],"tags":[130673,2128,2718,20232],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2024\/02\/19171555\/SC-11.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/331793"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=331793"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/331793\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/331795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=331793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=331793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=331793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}