Rajasthan High Court
Ramraj Singh S/O Shri Ramjilal vs Assistant Engineer ... on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/002445]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16473/2022
Ramraj Singh S/o Shri Ramjilal, R/o Village Tigariya, Tehsil
Todabheem, District Karauli.
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Engineer, Panchana Irrigation Subdivision-Ii, Shri
Mahaveerjee, Karauli.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neelu Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
10/02/2023
The writ petition has been listed in Orders category,
however, with consent of learned counsel for the petitioner
the matter has been heard on merits.
2. By way of instant writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India a challenge has been made to award
dated 23-9-2022 (Ann.6) passed by the Labour Court
Bharatpur in LCR No.2805/2015 (6/2013), whereby and
whereunder removal of petitioner from service on 1-12-1994
has been held illegal and invalid and petitioner has been
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- instead
of reinstatement.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential
[2023/RJJP/002445] (2 of 5) [CW-16473/2022]
benefits including back wages, and therefore, the impugned
award be modified accordingly.
4. Brief facts from pleadings made in writ petition it
appears that the petitioner was appointed as Baildar on daily
wages on 1-1-1991 and his services were discontinued on 1-
12-1994. The petitioner claimed that he had worked for more
than 240 days in the preceding year to his removal, and
therefore, his removal without following the provisions of
Sections 25F, G and H of the Industrial Act, 1947 (for short
`the Act of 1947') is illegal. It appears that the petitioner
raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, the failure
report was submitted on 12-2-2013 (Ann.1), and thereafter
the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner on 23-8-
2013 before the Labour Court Bharatpur. The respondent
employer contested the claim of petitioner, however, since
respondent employer failed to produce muster roll despite
order of the Labour Court adverse inference was drawn and it
was observed that the petitioner had worked for more than
240 days in a calendar year preceding his removal. Finally the
termination of petitioner on 1-12-1994 was held illegal and
invalid, however, taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner was a daily wager and he raised his grievance after
19 years from the date of his removal the award of
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- instead of
reinstatement in service has been passed vide impugned
[2023/RJJP/002445] (3 of 5) [CW-16473/2022]
award dated 23-9-2022. The Labour Court has also award
interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the compensation amount
in case the same is not paid within a period of two months.
5. Heard. Considered.
6. The Apex court in case of State of Uttarakhand Vs.
Raj Kumar [(2019)14 SCC 353] awarded compensation of
Rs.1 lac to the workman instead of his reinstatement taking
into consideration that he worked a daily wager hardly for a
period of one year and that he had no right to claim
regularisation or to continue as daily wager and lastly the
dispute was raised by the workman for about after 25 years
of his alleged termination. The Apex Court for such opinion
relied on celebrated judgment in case of BSNL Vs.
Bhurumal [2014)7 SCC 177]. It is apposite to reproduce
what the Apex Court held in case of BSNL v. Bhurumal
(supra):-
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of
reinstatement with full back wages when the
termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all case. While that may be a position
where services of a regular/ permanent workman are
terminated illegally and/ or malafide and/ or by way of
victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However,
when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-
wage worker and where the termination is found illegal
because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this court is
consistent in taking the view that in such cases
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
instead the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of justice.
Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.
[2023/RJJP/002445] (4 of 5) [CW-16473/2022]
34. The 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 regularisation [State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006)4 SCC 1]. Thus when
he cannot claim regularisation 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.
35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here.
There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage
worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was
resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of
the principle of last come first go viz. While retrenching
such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained.
There may also be a situation that persons junior to
him were regularised under some policy but the
workman concerned terminated. In such
circumstances, the terminated worker should not be
denied reinstatement unless there are some other
weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of
compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases,
reinstatement should be the rule and only in
exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in
writing, such a relief can be denied"
7. From aforestated facts and law, taking into consideration
the nature of services of the petitioner as daily wager, as well
as the tenure of service and the delay in raising the
grievance, this court is of the opinion that the impugned
award does not warrant any interference.
[2023/RJJP/002445] (5 of 5) [CW-16473/2022]
8. For reasons mentioned herein above there is no force in
the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
9. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/64
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
