Gopal Singh Son Of Shri Sultan ... vs The Executive Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 2146 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 122/2020

                                          In

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4721/2019

   Gopal Singh Son of Shri Sultan Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
   Resident of Ward No. 10, Uniara, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                      Versus
   1.     The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tonk
          (Rajasthan).
   2.     The    Assistant       Engineer,     Irrigation          Department,   Sub
          Division Uniara, Tonk (Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig, Advocate

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order

10/03/2022

Heard.

Upon due consideration, application for condonotion of delay

in filing the appeal is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is

condoned.

Heard.

By this intra court appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement

of the amount of lump sum compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

learned Single Judge having held that the termination was in

violation of Section 25 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and

that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- so awarded was meagre,

(2 of 2) [SAW-122/2020]

ought to have granted compensation at least to the tune of

Rs.3,00,000/- because in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited Vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 177 in lieu

of reinstatement, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

We find that the learned Single Judge taking into

consideration that the period during which the appellant served

before the retrenchment, has enhanced the compensation from

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The judgment, which is being relied

upon by the learned counsel for the appellant shows that a

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded. However, the parity

could not be drawn on the basis that the wages which have been

paid in that case and the wages appellant herein was getting were

identical.

Moreover, we find that learned Single Judge has been quite

benevolent in condoning the delay and latches on the part of the

appellant for approaching this Court.

Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

order passed by learned Single Judge.

Appeal is dismissed.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Mohita /54

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)