Rajasthan High Court
Executive Engineer P H E D Andanr vs Ganpatilal on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11784/2015
Ganpati Lal S/o Shri Boduram Regar, Village Divrala, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, Phed, Division Sawaimadhopur.
2. Assistant Engineer, Phed, Sub-Division Bamanvas,
Sawaimadhopur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5243/2016
1. Executive Engineer, Pubic Health Engineering Department,
Division Sawai Madhopur.
2. Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Sub Division Bamanwas. Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Ganpatilal Son Of Shri Bodu Ram, Divrala, Tehsil Srimadhopur
District Sikar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Khan for
Mr. Imran Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment / Order
02/05/2022
These petitions arise out of common award dated
12.05.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur
(hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') in L.C.R. No.2/2005
(2578/14) whereby, the Tribunal while holding the alleged
(2 of 4) [CW-11784/2015]
termination of the respondent- workman (hereinafter referred to
as 'the workman') to be invalid and directed the respondents to
pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs in lieu of reinstatement with
interest @ 6% p.a. if the amount of compensation is not paid to
the workman within a period of three months from the date of
passing of the award.
Aggrieved by the said direction passed by the Tribunal for
workman, the respondents have submitted these two different writ
petitions.
The facts of the case are that the workman in his statement
of claim averred that he was engaged by an oral order on
31.12.1991. Thereafter, he worked for about nine months and
thereafter, his services were terminated by an oral order on
31.12.1991 without any notice or payment of salary. It was also
averred in the claim petition by the workman that neither any
notice of terminating his service nor any amount/ compensation in
lieu thereof was given to him. It was also stated that the employer
apart from violating the principle of natural justice, has also
violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). Lastly, it
was prayed that while declaring the termination of workman as
invalid and illegal, the employer be directed to reinstate the
petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential benefits.
Submitting reply to the statement of claim and stated that
the workman has not worked with the employer on daily basis and
he has not completed 245 days, hence the provisions of the Act of
1947 are not attracted. It was also stated in the reply that the
dispute was raised after a delay of 13 years, hence, the claim
petition was liable to be dismissed.
(3 of 4) [CW-11784/2015]
After considering the pleadings and the evidence produced
by both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by
the workman and held that his termination order was not valid
and the workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2 lacs in
lieu of reinstatement. It was also observed that the petitioner has
worked for nine months only, hence he is entitled to get lump sum
amount of Rs.2 lacs.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Bhagya
Jal Nigam Ltd. vs. Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd.
reported in (2006) 9 SCC 697 and the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. vs.
Sharfuddin, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 has held that
reinstatement is not automatic, so adequate compensation can be
granted to the workman looking to the length of his service.
Admittedly, workman was employed by the respondents and he
worked for about nine months till 31.12.1991. The Labour Court
has noted the above fact and hold that the termination of the
workman was illegal but looking to the length of his service i.e.
nine months, monetary compensation of Rs. 2 lacs was awarded.
The finding of monetary compensation of Rs.2 lacs awarded by the
Tribunal is adequate. The Tribunal has applied the correct principle
of law and this Court finds no infirmity in the view taken by the
Tribunal.
In view of above discussion, both writ petitions stand
dismissed. Stay application and all pending applications also stand
dismissed.
The award was passed by the Tribunal on 12.05.2015 with a
specific direction for payment of compensation to the workman
within a period of three months, failing which the workman would
(4 of 4) [CW-11784/2015]
be entitled to get 6% interest per annum. Since more than seven
years have been passed and till date the award passed by the
Tribunal has not been complied by the respondents, the
respondents are directed to make payment of compensation of
Rs.2 lacs to the workman forthwith within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with
interest @ 6% per annum, as directed by the Labour Court.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Simple Kumawat /275-276
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
