Plant 21 Trees: Rajasthan High Court Imposes Condition On Workman Who Failed To Timely Adduce Evidence In Industrial Dispute

Rajasthan High Court imposed the condition of planting 21 share trees on a workman for allowing his petition seeking another opportunity to adduce evidence in his industrial dispute. His claim was rejected by the Labour Court earlier when he failed to lead evidence on the stipulated date.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.”

The petitioner was a government servant who was terminated without following any process. An industrial dispute was raised by him which was rejected by the Labour Court after he failed to adduce evidence on the fixed date.

The Court perused the records and highlighted that the records reflected the negligent attitude of the petitioner in conducting his case before the Labour Court. However, given the controversy involved in the matter, it was deemed just to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence.

One condition imposed by the Court for such opportunity, on the petitioner, was that he shall plant 21 shade trees in his vicinity in public area within one month from the date of order and shall produce photos of the same before the Labour Court.

“But, before allowing the petitioner to lead evidence, the compliance report would be seen by the Labour Court with regard to plantation of 21 saplings by the petitioner. The petitioner would look after these planted saplings till disposal of the claim petition. An undertaking be given by the petitioner that he would submit the photographs of the plantation of saplings on quarterly basis…”

It was opined that such a condition was imposed over monetary cost in the interest of greater public good.

Accordingly, the challenged order of the Labour Court was set aside, and the petition was disposed of.

Title: Sitaram v Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jodhpur & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 140

Click Here To Read/Download Order