Ganesha Ram vs The Judge Labour Court
2023 Latest Caselaw 8305 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33149]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7849/2020

Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Van Mandal, District- Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Mewa Ram, Resident Of Village - Valera, Tehsil - Sujangarh, District - Churu (Raj.).

----Respondent Connected With

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4385/2019

Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Mewa Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village Valera, Tehsil- Sujangarh, District- Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Judge Labour Court, Bikaner

2. The Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Van Mandal, Churu District Churu (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. S.S. Nirban


                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                                      Order

10/10/2023

1. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have

challenged the award dated 30.11.2018, passed by the learned

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bikaner (hereinafter

referred to as "the Labour Court"), whereby a reference made by

the State Government at the instance of the respondent-workman

(Ganesha Ram), has been disposed of in the manner that the

[2023:RJ-JD:33149] (2 of 6) [CW-7849/2020]

workman (Ganesha Ram) was entitled for a lump-sum amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) in lieu of reinstatement.

2. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the

workman (Ganesha Ram) had worked as a daily wage worker with

Forest Department from the year 1988 to 1993. As the services

of workman (Ganesha Ram) were retrenched, he preferred a writ

petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1017/1993. The said writ petition later on came to be

disposed of while giving a liberty to the workman to raise an

industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court. Whereafter,

the workman approached the State Government for making a

reference and the reference came to be made by the State

Government on 06.06.2007.

3. In pursuance of the reference aforesaid made by the State

Government, a labour case being case No.11/2008 (23/2014) was

registered before the learned Labour Court, Bikaner.

4. The learned Labour Court, while categorically recording the

finding that the workman (Ganesha Ram) had worked for more

than four years, held the retrenchment of the workman illegal, as

mandatory provisions of law were not followed. However, while

holding so, instead of directing the reinstatement of the workman,

a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement was

ordered to be paid by the State/Forest Department so also with a

stipulation that in case the amount aforesaid is not paid within a

period of two months from the date of the award, an interest @

9% per annum shall be paid.

5. First writ petition (SBCWP No.7849/2019) has been filed by

the State whereas, the second petition (SBCWP No.4385/2019)

[2023:RJ-JD:33149] (3 of 6) [CW-7849/2020]

has been preferred by the Workman with a contention that the

Labour Court ought to have ordered for reinstatement.

6. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the Forest Department arguing the first writ petition submitted

that the learned Labour Court has erred in awarding such

exorbitant amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement.

7. He submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed

an error in recording a finding that the workman had illegally been

retrenched. He lastly submitted that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

awarded as lump-sum compensation is excessive.

8. Mr. Jasol, submitted that the ground for workman's removal

was lack of funds with the Department, therefore, the State/Forest

Department was justified in retrenching the workman.

9. Mr. S.S. Nirban, learned counsel for the workman, on the

other hand, argued that the learned Labour Court has appreciated

the facts and evidence on record in detail and has recorded a

finding that the workman had worked for more than four years

and such finding of fact cannot be gone into in the extra-ordinary

jurisdiction of this Court, vested under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

10. He argued that the finding recorded by the learned Labour

Court is infallible and the same be not interfered with.

11. Pressing his writ petition, Mr. Nirban, learned counsel argued

that having recorded a finding that retrenchment was illegal, the

Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement of the

workman. Alternatively, while submitting that the lump-sum

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is rather on the lower side, learned

counsel for the workman relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the

[2023:RJ-JD:33149] (4 of 6) [CW-7849/2020]

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

decided on 11.12.2013 reported in (AIR 2014 SCW 258), on the

basis whereof, this Court has passed the order granting lump-sum

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, considering the inflation.

12. It was also argued by Mr. Jasol, in rejoinder, that at the time

of retrenchment, the compensation in accordance with the law

was given to the workman.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal the

material available on record.

14. So far as Mr. Jasol's contention on merit of the award that on

account of lack of funds, the services of workman were dispensed

with, is considered, it can be a valid reason for retrenching the

workman, but then the mandate of statutory provisions has to be

followed.

15. An argument has been advanced that at the time of

retrenchment, compensation was paid to the workman, but on

perusal of the award, it is revealed that it is bare assertion and is

not supported by any evidence.

16. Such being the position, this Court is of the view that both

the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State, in the

present writ petition, are untenable.

17. It is to be noted that by a common reference dated

06.06.2007, the case of the present workman as well as

petitioners in connected matters (viz. Phool Singh and Narpat

Singh) came to be decided by the learned Labour Court by award

dated 28/30.11.2018.

18. Pursuant to the query posed by the Court, learned counsel

for the State, after inquiry at his level, submitted that no writ

[2023:RJ-JD:33149] (5 of 6) [CW-7849/2020]

petition has been filed against the other two awards passed in the

case of Narpat Singh and Phool Singh.

19. In the opinion of this Court, when the impugned award has

been passed in case of all three employees in similar facts and

circumstances and in furtherance of a common reference, the

State cannot resort to challenge the award passed only in present

workman's case, while accepting the same qua the others.

20. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the

learned Labour Court that the workman - Ganesha Ram has been

illegally retrenched turns out to be a complete finding of fact with

no perversity therein. Further, the quantum of compensation that

has been awarded by the learned Labour Court is justified, given

the fact that the workman - Ganesha Ram has worked for more

than four years and he has taken up the remedy, immediately

after the impugned order, by way of filing writ petition before this

Court in the year 1993. Whereafter, the workman - Ganesha Ram

was relegated to avail the remedy under the Act of 1947.

Thereafter, the reference was made in the year 2007 and it was

because of the procedural delay, the reference ultimately came to

be decided by the learned Labour Court on 30.11.2018.

21. This Court is of the view that the workman has been

litigating for more than 25 years and in the backdrop of such fact

situation, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- that has been awarded by

the learned Labour Court in the year 2018 cannot be said to be

excessive in any manner. But since interest @ 9% has been

awarded by the Labour Court, it will compensate the workman for

the slightly lesser amount.

[2023:RJ-JD:33149] (6 of 6) [CW-7849/2020]

22. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason

to interfere in the impugned award.

23. These writ petitions are, thus, dismissed.

24. It is to be noted that by virtue of the interim order dated

02.09.2020 passed in (SBCWP No.7849/2020), the effect and

operation of the award dated 30.11.2018 was partially stayed,

subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman.

25. Consequential to dismissal of writ petitions, it will be

required of the State to deposit remaining amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of award

with the learned Labour Court on or before 31.12.2023.

26. The workman shall be entitled to claim the said amount from

the learned Labour Court, in accordance with law.

27. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 482-483-Ramesh/Arun, PS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)