Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manager, Happy Hours School vs Sugan Lal And Anr. ... on 18 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:35845]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5122/2018
Manager, Happy Hours School, Ajit Bhawan, Near Circuit House,
Raikabag, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sugan Lal S/o. Sh. Nena Ram, Through District President
Shri Brij Kishore, Rajasthan Trade Union Centre (R.
CITU), Outside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur.
2. The Industrial Dispute Tribunal And Labour Court,
Jodhpur Raj..
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/10/2023
1. The order impugned in the present writ petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, a judgment and award
dated 31.10.2017, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court')
2. The precise facts which are necessary for the present
purposes are that a reference came to be made to the learned
Labour Court at the instance of the respondent, who claimed that
he having worked as a Driver with the petitioner - School for the
period between 27.10.2005 to 15.09.2009, has been retrenched
by an oral order without complying with the provisions of section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act of 1947"). Said reference came to be answered by the
[2023:RJ-JD:35845] (2 of 3) [CW-5122/2018]
learned Labour Court in favour of respondent-workman by award
dated 31.10.2017.
3. Mr. Nitin Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner-School
invited Court's attention towards the factual matrix of the case
and argued that the respondent No.1 was not illegally retrenched
rather he voluntarily absented himself from work.
4. Though the award of Labour Court has been challenged by
the petitioner- School Management on merits, but, in the changed
circumstances, Mr. Nitin Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner-
Management submitted that petitioner-Management is willing to
pay a lump-sum compensation to the respondent-workman in lieu
of reinstatement.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
6. Mr. M.S. Godara, learned counsel for the respondent-
workman on instructions submitted that the respondent-workman
is amenable to petitioner's proposition and a lump-sum
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- be awarded with which
his client would be satisfied as he does not feel inclined to work at
this matured age.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case
B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal decided on 11.12.2013 reported in (AIR
2014 SCW 258) and submitted that respondent-workman be paid
at least Rupees 5 lacs as a lump-sum compensation having regard
to inflation (because in the year 2013, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
has awarded lump sum compensation of Rupees 3 lacs).
[2023:RJ-JD:35845] (3 of 3) [CW-5122/2018]
8. 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 considering that
the parties are ready to give a quietus to the issue and further
bearing in mind the inflation and present cost of living, this Court
is of the view that interest of justice will be met if a compensation
of Rs.4,00,000/- is paid to the respondent-workman.
9. The award dated 31.10.2017 is, thus accordingly modified.
The respondent-workman is held entitled to get a lump-sum
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- instead of reinstatement.
10. The amount be paid within a period of three months from
today. In case of default the same shall carry interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of the order instant.
11. The writ petition so also all interlocutory applications,
including stay application stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
43-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
