Rajasthan High Court
Jagdish vs Judge Labour Court Ors on 5 April, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7669/2012
Jagdish Son Of Sanwat Ram Meena, Siriyan Ki Dhani, By Pass,
Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Judge Labour Court No. 2, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rashtriya
Raj Marg, Divison-Iv, Dausa Raj.
3. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Rashtriya
Raj Marg, Sub-Division, Dausa Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
05/04/2022
Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-
workman challenging the award dated 03.05.2011 passed by the
learned Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, whereby the Labour Court held
that the termination of the services of the petitioner-workman is
invalid however considering his period of service as daily wager
from 1.02.1987 to 30.12.1988, in lieu of reinstatement, awarded a
lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner-
workman. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner-workman.
Counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that the learned
Labour Court ought to have reinstated the petitioner once the
finding is recorded that the termination of his services is invalid.
(2 of 3) [CW-7669/2012]
Counsel further submits that the learned Labour Court has
committed illegality in awarding the lump-sum compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner-workman instead of reinstatement.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that
the learned Labour Court has rightly directed to pay the
compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement
considering his period of service.
In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal, reported in
(2014) 7 SCC 177, where in para No.24 held as under:-
"24. Reasons for denying the relief of
reinstatement in such cases are
obvious. It is trite law that when the
termination is found to be illegal
because of non-payment of
retrenchment compensation and notice
pay as mandatorily required under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to
terminate the services of that employee
by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since such a workman
was working on daily wage basis and
even after he is reinstated, he has no
right to seek regularization (See: State
of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
MANU/SC/1918/2006 : (2006) 4 SCC
1). Thus when he cannot claim
regularization and he has no right to
continue even as a daily wage worker,
no useful purpose is going to be served
in reinstating such a workman and he
can be given monetary compensation by
the Court itself inasmuch as if he is
terminated again after reinstatement,
he would receive monetary
compensation only in the form of
retrenchment compensation and
notice pay. In such a situation, giving
the relief of reinstatement, that too
after a long gap, would not serve any
purpose."
(3 of 3) [CW-7669/2012]
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioner-workman deserves to
be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the learned Labour court in
its wisdom has passed the order for payment of compensation
considering the period of service of the petitioner-workman with
the respondent-PWD; secondly, in view of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited (supra), the compensation awarded by the
learned Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement in my view is just
and proper; thirdly, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
However, the respondent-PWD is directed to pay the
compensation as awarded by the learned Labour Court along with
interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner-workman within a
period of one month from today.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/122
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
