HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15175/2010
Sita Ram Saini Son Of Shri Laxmi Narayan, By Caste Saini,
Village Post- Natha Wala Badi Dhani, Shahpura, District- Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Judge, Labour Court No. 1, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division-
I, Near Railway Station, Jaipur.
3. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sub-Division
Shahpura, Industrial Area, Shahpura, District- Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
01/04/2022
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') in case LCR No.259/2004 whereby termination of the services of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Workman') has been held to be invalid and the respondents-employer has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.15000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.
Brief facts of the case are that the workman in his claim filed before the Labour Court averred that he was engaged on the post of Beldar in the office of respondents on 18.12.1987 and he was continuously working upto 30.10.1991 but without serving any (Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:13:02 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-15175/2010] notice, his services were terminated nor he was paid any amount of compensation. Counsel submits that services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). In the claim petition, the workman prayed for declaring his termination null and void in view of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 with prayer for reinstatement in service.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the employer-respondents terminated the services of the workman by saying that the workman had failed to do work in their office for more than 240 days. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the dispute was raised after a delay of 12 years.
After hearing the arguments of both sides, Labour Court passed an award on 09.09.2010 whereby the respondents were directed to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner has approached this Court for modification of the award with the prayer that he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is a settled law decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of judgments that if the workman claims that there is a violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and if he proves it before the Court by leading the evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, then the Court should pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. (Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:13:02 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-15175/2010] The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs. Sharfuddin passed in DB CWP No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held as under:-
"3. We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.-D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be Rs.1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been Rs.2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be Rs.3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair.
4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages) based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests (supra), this Court is of the view that the directions issued by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. However, considering the fact that the amount of compensation awarded to the workman of Rs.15000/- is too meagre, the workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3 lacs as he had worked for more than 3 years in lieu of reinstatement.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3 lacs adjusting the amount of Rs.15000/- to the workman (Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:13:02 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-15175/2010] as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as observed above, within a period of 2 months from today.
The award passed by the Labour Court dated 09.09.2010 stands modified in the above terms.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
All pending applications, if any stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J HEENA GANDHI /41 (Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:13:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)