Smt Shakuntla And Ors vs Vikas Adhikari
2021 Latest Caselaw 7638 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5066/2018

1.      Smt Shakuntla Wife Of Late Shri Brijendra Singh
2.      Sunil S/o Late Shri Brijendra Singh
3.      Neetu D/o Late Shri Brijendra Singh
4.      Surendra S/o Late Shri Brijendra Singh
5.      Vishal S/o Late Shri Brijendra Singh
6.      Babli D/o Late Shri Brijendra Singh,
        All are Legal Representatives Of Deceased Brijendra
        Singh, R/o Nagla Midiyani, Panchayat Samiti Roopbas,
        District - Bharatpur
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Roopbas, Disctrict Bharatpur
Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, G.C.

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

15/12/2021

The present Writ Petition has been filed against the award

dated 29.12.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, wherein

the Labour Court had reached to a specific finding that

retrenchment of the employee was invalid but as the workman

had expired during the pendency of the proceedings, the Labour

Court proceeded on to grant a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The said amount was to be coupled with interest @ 6% p.a. from

the period of 01.12.1990 to 31.12.2017 and further @ 9% per

(2 of 4) [CW-5066/2018]

annum from 01.01.2018 the date till the date of payment if not

paid within a period of two months.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the amount of

compensation as awarded by the Labour Court is a meagre

amount keeping in consideration the number of dependents of the

deceased employee. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that

the delay in preferring the claim and reference thereof to the

Labour Court would not be of much relevance as the Statute does

not provide for any limitation for filing the claims.

In support of his submissions, Counsel has relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M. Instrument Design Development

and Facilities Centre & Anr.: (2011 DNJ (SC) 266) and

judgment of this Court passed in Resident Engineer, Rajasthan

State Road Development Construction Corporation Ltd.

Deoli District Tonk, Hq Kota. Vs. Judge Labour Court-2

Jaipur and Anr.: (2017 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1135).

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and ors. Vs.

Munna Prasad Saini and Anr.(Civil Appeal No.5810/2021),

decided on 20.09.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

proceeded on to award a lump sum amount of compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent has argued that in the

present matter, the petitioner had worked for a short period of six

months only and the date of retrenchment also pertains way back

to the year 1990. After the date of retrenchment, the reference

has been made after a period of more than 10 years which is fatal.

(3 of 4) [CW-5066/2018]

Counsel further argued that keeping in consideration the

delay and the tenure for which the workman had worked, the

Labour Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- which is

perfectly valid and logical in the present matter. It has also been

argued that generally in the award of the Labour Court wherein

the lump sum compensation is granted, no interest is granted but

in the present matter the compensation is coupled with the

interest too and therefore, it suffice the purpose and the same

does not deserve to be enhanced.

Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj

Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur Vs. Prashant

Manikrao Kubitkar: [(2019) 12 SCC 294] and a judgment of

this Court in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District

Alwar Vs. Labour Colurt and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar and

Anr. and other connected matters: (D.B.Special Appeal Writ

No.406/2018, decided on 31.07.2018).

Heard the parties and perused the material on record.

It is clear on record that the workman had worked in total for

a period of 10 months with the Department and his services was

retrenched in the year 1990. Although, it has been argued by the

counsel for the respondent that the reference was made after a

period of 10 years, it is clear from the record that first the matter

went up for conciliation proceedings in the year 1998 and on the

failure of the same, the reference was made to the Labour Court.

So it can be concluded that the dispute was live and the same was

pursued by the workman.

So far as compensation part is concerned, the Labour Court

has granted Rs.50,000/- as a lump sum amount which this Court,

(4 of 4) [CW-5066/2018]

in view of the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner,

deems appropriate to enhance. The lump sum amount of

Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Labour Court is enhanced to

Rs.1,00,000/- keeping in view the number of the dependents of

the deceased employee. The enhanced amount would carry

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till the day

of payment.

It is directed that the Legal Representatives of the deceased-

employee (petitioner) would provide the Bank Account details in

which the compensation amount is to be deposited within a period

of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order to the

respondent authority.

The Department is directed to deposit the amount of

compensation amount within a period of two months thereafter.

With these observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed

of.

(REKHA BORANA),J

Pcg/133

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)