Rajasthan High Court
Assistant Engineer P W D Alwar vs Hari Singh And Anr on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 269/2006
Assistant Engineer Public Works Department, sub-Division First,
Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Hari Singh S/o Badri Singh, R/o of Guzuki, Tehsil Alwar
District, Alwar.
2. The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur Camp, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy. G.C
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
01/04/2022
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter
referred to as 'the employer') challenging the Award dated
24.06.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in case No.
LCR:219/1995, whereby the Labour Court while holding the
termination dated 01.01.1999 of the respondent No.1 (hereinafter
referred to as 'workman') invalid, directed for his reinstatement
with continuity in service along with 25% back-wages from the
date of termination.
Brief facts of the case are that the workman, in his
statement of claim, averred that he was appointed on the post of
'Beldar' on 23.04.1988 and he worked on the said post till
08.02.1989. It was also stated in the claim petition that neither
any notice of termination nor any amount/compensation in lieu
thereof was given to him and his services were terminated without
(2 of 4) [CW-269/2006]
affording an opportunity of hearing. It was also stated that the
petitioner-employer not only violated the principles of natural
justice but also violated the provision contained under Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947').
Lastly, it was prayed that while declaring the termination of
the workman as illegal and not valid, the employer be directed to
reinstate him with continuity in service with all consequential
benefits.
The employer submitted its reply and denied the averments
of the statement of claim and stated that there was no continuity
in the services of the workman and the workman left the services
at his own will. It was also pleaded in the reply that the workman
has worked only for a period of 146 days i.e from 05.07.1988 to
03.01.1989, hence the provisions of the Act of 1947 are not
attracted.
After hearing both the sides, the Labour Court passed the
award and held that the termination of the workman-respondent
No.1 was in-violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and
directed the employer to reinstate the workman-respondent in
service with continuity and pay 25% back-wages to him from the
date of termination of service.
Feeling aggrieved by the said award, instant petition has
been filed by the employer-petitioner.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused documents
available on record.
It is the settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
catena of judgments that it is for the workman to prove that there
is violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.
(3 of 4) [CW-269/2006]
In the present case, the workman pleaded in his case before
the Labour Court by leading the evidence that he worked with
effect from 23.04.1988 to 01.11.1993 i.e more than 5 years.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case and more particularly in view of the settled position of law
that reinstatement is not an automatic and suitable, compensation
can be granted to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator
of Forests & Anr. Vs. Sharfuddin (D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.700/2018) decided on 20.08.2019 has held as under in
Para Nos. 3 & 4:-
"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 and 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 had 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 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr.
(supra), I am of the view that the findings of facts recorded by
the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court.
However, considering that the reinstatement is not an automatic, I
(4 of 4) [CW-269/2006]
deem it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-
to the workman-respondent No.1 in lieu of reinstatement.
Accordingly, the employer-petitioner is directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent No.1-workman as
compensation in lieu of reinstatement as observed above within a
period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this
Order.
The award of the Tribunal dated 24.06.2005 stands modified
in the above terms.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also
stand(s) disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
PRAVESH/6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
