State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Mohan Lal (2023/Rjjd/015887)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4834 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015887]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8247/2017

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

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaisalmer

----Petitioners Versus Mohan Lal S/o Arjun Ram Through Chief Secretary, Regional P.w.d.b And R Majdoor Sangh, Jodhpur

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Paliwal Mr. Anil Bachhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Pandey Mr. Ramniwas Haniya

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

18/05/2023

1. The order impugned in the present writ petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is, a judgment and award dated

03.11.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court,

Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

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, who

claimed that he having worked for more than 240 days between

12.08.1988 to 01.08.1989 has been retrenched by an oral order

without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the

[2023/RJJD/015887] (2 of 4) [CW-8247/2017]

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Said reference came to be answered

in respondent's favour by the Tribunal by award dated 03.11.2016.

3. On 28.07.2017, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed

effect and operation of the award dated 03.11.2016, passed by

the Tribunal in the above Labour Dispute Case No. 95/2006.

4. Mr. S.R. Paliwal learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

5. While maintaining that the Tribunal has erred in holding that

the respondent has worked for more than 240 days in a year,

learned counsel argued that the order passed by the Tribunal in

the facts of the present case directing reinstatement is contrary to

settled legal position, inasmuch even if it is assumed that the

respondent has worked for a year, the order of reinstatement

ought not to have been passed when the dispute was raised after

16 years of the retrenchment (i.e. in year 2004). He submitted

that the Tribunal ought to have ordered lumpsum compensation,

in lieu of reinstatement given that the respondent had worked for

less than a year.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly, the respondent - applicant is 53 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 53 years

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

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

[2023/RJJD/015887] (3 of 4) [CW-8247/2017]

01.08.1988 to 01.09.1989 and the dispute was firstly raised on

08.03.2004.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. The award dated 03.11.2016 is, thus, accordingly modified.

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

instead of reinstatement and 30% back wages.

[2023/RJJD/015887] (4 of 4) [CW-8247/2017]

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

today.

13. The writ petition so also all interlocutory applications,

including stay application stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 34/KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)