State Of Raj. And Anr vs Chatura Ram (2023/Rjjd/015653)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4728 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015653]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8289/2017

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaisalmer.

----Petitioners Versus Chatura Ram S/o Kana Ram, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Village Dholiya, Tehsil Pokhran, Distt. Jaisalmer.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal Mr Anil Bachhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment 17/05/2023

I.A.No.01/2022:-

1. The respondent - applicant has preferred the present

application under Section 17 - B of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act or the Act of 1947').

2. The precise facts which are necessary for the present

purposes are that a Reference came to be made to the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at the instance of the respondent,

which was answered in his favour by the Labour Court by award

dated 03.11.2016.

3. By way of order dated 21.07.2017, a co-ordinate Bench of

this Court stayed effect and operation of the award dated

03.11.2016, passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur in

Labour Dispute Case No. 53/2006.

[2023/RJJD/015653] (2 of 4) [CW-8289/2017]

4. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that while staying

the effect and operation of the award, the provision of Section 17

- B of the Act of 1947 was not given effect to by the Court.

5. While inviting Court's attention towards the averments made

in the application under consideration, Mr. Rajpurohit contended

that the respondent - applicant is not gainfully employed and

therefore, the respondent - applicant is entitled for reinstatement

or the payment according to provisions of Section 17 - B of the

Act of 1947.

6. Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 - State,

on the other hand, submitted that the application has been filed

after about a delay of 5 years, which itself is suggestive of the fact

that the respondent - applicant is gainfully employed.

7. He invited Court's attention towards the factual matrix of the

case and pointed out that the respondent - applicant was

purportedly retrenched in the year 1989 and after 16 years

therefrom, a Reference came to be made in the year 2005. He

added that not only during 11 years when the case was pending

before the Tribunal, even after its decision in the year 2017, the

respondent - applicant has been managing his finances and affairs

and hence, no order under Section 17 - B of the Act of 1947 be

passed.

8. It was also argued that the order passed by the Tribunal in

the facts of the present case directing reinstatement is contrary to

settled legal position inasmuch as after such a belated stage, the

order of reinstatement ought not to have been passed and

instead, the Tribunal ought to have ordered lumpsum

[2023/RJJD/015653] (3 of 4) [CW-8289/2017]

compensation, in lieu of reinstatement given that the respondent

had worked for less than a year.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Admittedly, the respondent - applicant is 56 years of age

and he has not been working with the State for last 34 years.

Issuing any direction for reinstatement qua a person of 56 years

of age would not be appropriate in the factual matrix, given that

according to respondent's own version, he had worked from

01.08.1988 to 01.09.1989 and the dispute was firstly raised on

08.03.2004.

11. That apart, the fact that even after passing of the award, the

respondent - applicant remained in hibernation and despite

service of the notice in the year 2018, the application in hands

came to be filed on 27.07.2022. This Court has every reason to

believe that the respondent - applicant was gainfully employed or

otherwise earning, else he would have not remained indolent

towards his rights.

12. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the factual

backdrop, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the order of

reinstatement, because, the respondent - applicant was

retrenched in the year 1989 and he approached the Division

Labour Commissioner on 08.03.2004 and the Reference was made

after 16 years and 11 years' time elapsed in deciding the

Reference.

13. Having concluded this, the Court proposed that instead of

passing order on the application under Section 17 - B of the Act of

[2023/RJJD/015653] (4 of 4) [CW-8289/2017]

1947, the award itself be modified and in lieu of reinstatement a

lumpsum compensation be ordered.

14. Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the

respondent - applicant relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court rendered in the case of B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal

decided on 11.12.2013 reported in (AIR 2014 SCW 258) and

submitted that respondent - applicant be paid atleast Rupees 5

lacs as a lumpsum compensation having regard to inflation;

(because in the year 2013, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has

awarded lumpsum compensation of Rupees 3 lacs).

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered

in the case of B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal (supra) and the ever

increasing inflation, this Court is of the view that the ends of

justice would be met if the award dated 03.11.2016 is modified

and the State is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation to the

respondent - applicant to the tune of Rupees 4 lacs.

16. The award dated 03.11.2016 is, thus, modified, the

respondent is held entitled to get a sum of Rupees 4 lacs instead

of reinstatement and 30% back wages.

17. The amount be paid within a period of three months from

today.

18. The writ petition so also all interlocutory applications,

including stay application stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 36-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)