Chunni Lal S/O Late Shri Ram Lal vs Chairman And Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1524 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21498/2019

Chunni Lal S/o Late Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
House No. 1199/5, Uniyara House, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole
Bazar, Jaipur.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Bridge And
Construction      Corporation        Limited,        Setu         Bhawan,        Jhalana
Doongari, Agra Bypass, Jaipur Now Substituted And Changed
Name Rajasthan State Road And Development Corporation
Limited, Setu Bhawan, Jhalana Doongari, Agra Bypass, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta for Mr. Babu Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. V P Mathur

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

11/02/2021

1. The petitioner who is now at the age of 77 has preferred

this writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour

Court whereby compensation was awarded in lieu of the

reinstatement. As the petitioner could not have been reinstated, a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although

there is no straight jacket formula available for award of amount,

still he relies on one judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

case of Navsari Agricultural University vs Ghanshyambhai

Ashabhai Patel: SLP No.5346/2016 decided on 31.01.2020

wherein the Supreme Court considering that such a workman had

(2 of 2) [CW-26038/2018]

crossed age of 62 years, awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- only.

The petitioner submits that he had worked for five years as per

the award of the Labour Court.

3. Per contra, Mr. Mathur learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/s submits that this dispute itself was raised after 30

years and therefore no interference is warranted in the award. It

is stated that the award has not been challenged and the amount

has also been prepared and sent to the petitioner.

4. I have considered the submissions.

5. While delay was one factor which may be taken into

account in certain circumstances, however for the purpose of

award of compensation, in the opinion of this Court, a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court does not warrant any

interference as the petitioner who was appointed on daily wage

basis in the year 1984 and worked up to 1989 could not have got

more than one lakh even if all the back wages would have been

paid to him. The award therefore does not warrant

interference.

6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

NITIN /102

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)