Laxman Prashad Sharma Son Of Shree ... vs Judge, Labour Court No. 1
2022 Latest Caselaw 94 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1436/2019
 Laxman Prasad Sharma Son Of Shri Banshilal, Resident Of
 Village And Post Andhi, District Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
 1.      Judge, Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur
                                                     ----Proforma Respondent

2. Director, Rajasthan Lottery Department, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pratap Singh Sirohi Advocate through Video Conferencing.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

05/01/2022

Heard on prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Taking into consideration the period of delay and the cause

shown, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal. Delay

is accordingly condoned.

Application is allowed.

Heard.

This appeal arises out of an order dated 28.02.2019 by

which appellant's petition challenging award has been disposed

off.

The appellant had challenged award dated 02.05.2012,

whereby, termination of the appellant from service was held illegal

and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation in lieu of

reinstatement.

(2 of 2) [SAW-1436/2019]

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that once the

court held that the termination was in violation of the provisions

contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the

appellant ought to have been reinstated. The other submission is

that in any case, the lump-sum compensation in lieu of

reinstatement is on much lower side. He would submit that bare

Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded, whereas, in the present case,

the workman had remained out of employment since 20.05.1995.

The view taken by the learned Single Judge to reject the

appellant's claim of reinstatement is well founded in view of law

laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of District

Development Officer and Anr. Vs Satish Kantilal Amrelia,

2018 (12) SCC 298.

As far as the quantum of compensation in lieu of

reinstatement is concerned, we find that the appellant relied upon

Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Rashtrasant Tukdoji

Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur Vs. Prashant

Manikarao Kubitkar, 2018 (12) SCC 294 where having

examined that the workman had worked for a period of two years

and three months, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded.

In the present case, undeniably the appellant had also

worked for less than three years before his retrenchment. Despite

that, the learned Single Judge has been quite liberal in awarding

lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

In our view, the order passed by the leaned Single Judge

does not warrant any interference. The appeal is devoid of merit

and is, therefore, dismissed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Sanjay Kumawat-29

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)