Rajasthan High Court
Nagar Parishad Kota vs Sita Ram 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. 7064/2008
Nagar Parishad Kota at present Nagar Nigam, Kota through its
Commissioner
----Petitioner/Employer
Versus
1. Sita Ram S/o Shri Kalu Lal through Secretary, Rajasthan Trade
Union and Legal Advisor, Nagar Prishad Employees Union, Kota
2. The Judge, Labour Court, Kota
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma Dy.GC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mitesh Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
01/04/2022
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter
referred as 'the employer') challenging the award dated
30.04.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in LCR No.
265/1999 whereby the Labour Court while holding the alleged
termination of the respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the
workman') invalid, directed the employer for his reinstatement
with continuity in service without back wages.
Brief facts of this case are that the workman in his statement
of claim submitted that he was engaged on the post of Class-IV
employee in the office of the employer on 05.08.1981 and he
continued to work on the said post till 25.06.1984. It was also
stated by him that neither any notice of termination of his service
nor any amount/compensation in lieu thereof was given to him.
Hence there was violation of 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
(2 of 4) [CW-7064/2008]
1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). Lastly, it was prayed that
while declaring the termination of the workman as illegal and
invalid, the employer be directed to reinstate him with continuity
in service with all consequential benefits.
On the other hand, the employer submitted its reply and
denied the averments of the statement of the claim and stated
that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days and
there was delay of 11 years in raising the dispute.
After considering the pleadings and arguments of both sides,
the Labour Court passed an award and the order of termination
was quashed and set aside by treating the same as null and void
and in violation of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 and directed
the employer to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in service
without back wages.
Feeling aggrieved with the award dated 30.04.2008, the
employer has submitted instant petition before this Court.
Heard counsel appearing for the parties.
It is the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of
judgments that it is for the workman to prove that there was
violation of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 and in the present
case the workman pleaded in his case before the Labour Court by
leading evidence that the provisions of Act of 1947 were violated
by the employer without giving any notice or compensation before
terminating his services and considering the evidence on record,
the claim petition filed by the workman was allowed by recording
the finding of violation of provisions of the Act of 1947.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy
Conservator of Forests & Anr. Vs. Sharfuddin (DB Special
(3 of 4) [CW-7064/2008]
Appeal Writ No. 700/2018) decided on 20.08.2019 has held as
under in Para Nos. 3 and 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 case and
more particularly the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
reinstatement is not automatic in such matters and taking into
consideration the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests (supra), I am of the
view that the findings recorded by the Labour Court do not require
interference by this Court. However, considering that the
reinstatement is not automatic, I deem it just and proper to award
compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs to the workman in lieu of
reinstatement.
Accordingly, the employer is directed to pay an amount of
Rs. 3 Lakhs to the workman respondent as compensation in lieu of
reinstatement as observed above within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The award of the Labour Court dated 30.04.2008 is modified
in the above terms.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(4 of 4) [CW-7064/2008]
Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ritu/92
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
