Rajasthan High Court
Sita Ram Saini vs Judge Labour Court And Ors on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
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
(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.
(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
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
