Narpat Singh vs State And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1073 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1073 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narpat Singh vs State And Ors on 27 January, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023/RJJD/002282]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/2005

Narpat Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri a/w
Mr. Chirag Khatri &
Mr. Milind Chhangani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa, AGC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 24/01/2023

Pronounced on 27/01/2023

1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may
kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or
direction:
I. The order/notice dated 30.06.2005 (Anx.4) issued by the
respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and the petitioner
may kindly be ordered to be reinstated back in service.
II. The petitioner may be permitted to do his work under
the respondent No.3 as regular employee.
III. During the pendency of the writ petition if any kind of
adverse decision is taken against the petitioner the same
may also be quashed.
IV. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may
be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case may be passed.

(Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:26:19 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002282] (2 of 5) [CW-5120/2005]

V. The costs of the writ petition may kindly be ordered to
be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by

learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was

engaged on 01.08.1991, as labour on daily wage basis,

whereupon he served the respondent-Department

continuously for a period of four years. The services of

petitioner however, were terminated on 01.09.1994 without

any notice and compensation, against which, the petitioner

filed an application before the Conciliation Officer of the

Labour Department, and upon failure of the conciliation

proceedings between the petitioner and respondents, the

matter was referred to the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur on

21.07.1999.

2.1 The learned Labour Court vide order dated 18.12.2001

decided the reference, while holding the termination of the

petitioner's services as illegal, and accordingly, directed his

reinstatement in the service, alongwith back wages to the

tune of 25% of wages, as the petitioner was receiving on the

date of his termination.

2.2 As per the averments made in the petition, the

respondents did not make due compliance of the order

passed by the learned Labour Court, whereupon the

petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.1900/2003, which, vide order dated 04.01.2005,

was allowed by this Hon'ble Court, with a direction to the

respondents to execute the order dated 18.12.2001 passed

(Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:26:19 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002282] (3 of 5) [CW-5120/2005]

by the learned Labour Court, within three months from the

date of the order.

2.3. Thereafter, on 23.04.2005, the petitioner was

reinstated in service, pursuant to which, the petitioner joined

his service on 02.05.2005; however, the respondents again

terminated the petitioner's service vide the impugned order

dated 30.06.2005, that too, without any prior notice and

compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned action of the respondents in terminating the

services of the petitioner is illegal and unconstitutional,

because the respondents, had taken such a decision, without

giving any compensation and prior notice to the petitioner.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Anil Mithra &

Anr. Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit &

Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9067 of 2014 decided on

27.10.2021).

Relevant portion of which reads as under: -

"42. In the facts and circumstances of the instant cases
and looking into the nature of service rendered by the
appellants as daily wager for a short period, while
upholding the termination of the appellants being in
violation of Section 25F of the Act 1947, we consider it
just and reasonable to award a lumpsum monetary
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty
thousand) to each of the appellants-workmen in full and
final satisfaction of the dispute in lieu of right to claim

(Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:26:19 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002282] (4 of 5) [CW-5120/2005]

reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the
Tribunal.
43. The respondents shall pay the compensation as
awarded by this Court to each of the appellants-workmen
within a period of three months.
44. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are partly allowed. The impugned judgment
of the High Court dated 4th January, 2010 is hereby set
aside and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 14th
November, 2005 is modified to the extent indicated
above.
45. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner

was working on daily wage basis and his services were

terminated, after following the mandatory provision of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that in compliance of the orders passed by this

Hon'ble Court as well as the Labour Court, the petitioner

was reinstated in service on daily wage basis and all back

wages were also duly paid to him.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as