Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kaluram vs Judge, I.T. Cum Lab.Court Udaipur ... on 25 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:44098]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8578/2008
Kaluram S/o Shri Bhema Dabi, Aged About 36 years, R/o
Malana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Judge Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Udaipur.
2. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education)
Banswara (Raj.)
3. The Head Master, Government Upper Primary School,
Mallana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara through the District
Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Banswara
(Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
25/10/2024
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the award dated 03.11.2001 passed by the Judge,
Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case
No.101/1998.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar
controversy, wherein the award dated 03.11.2001 passed by the
Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur was
challenged, has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 16.04.2007 passed in Smt. Dhuli Vs.
The Judge, Labour Court & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
[2024:RJ-JD:44098] (2 of 4) [CW-8578/2008]
No.1087/2006) while modifying the award by granting the relief
of reinstatement instead of compensation in lieu of reinstatement
as awarded by the Labour Court. The said judgment is reproduced
herein below:
By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the impugned Award Annx.1 dated 3-11-2001 published on 10-
6-2002 vide Annx.2 dated 15-5-2002.
I have herd learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the writ petition filed by similarly situated persons, viz.
Ramlal S/o Haliya (SBCWP No.4322/2003) came to be allowed
by this Court vide order dated 28-4-2005; and the another writ
petition filed by similarly situated person, viz. Nanji (SBCWP
No. 2967/2003), reported in 2005 (8) RDD 2846 (Raj.), came
to be decided on 22-7-2005, modifying the awards awarding
compensation in lieu of reinstatement to that of reinstatement
and in pursuance thereof, the aforesaid persons Ram Lal and
Nanji have been reinstated in service by the respondent-
departments. It is contended that the case of the present
petitions is akin to these two persons and, therefore, the
impugned award may be modified by granting the relief of
reinstatement instead of compensation in lieu of reinstatement
as awarded by the Labour Court.
In Mohan Lal Vs. The Management of M/s. Bharat
Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
"The last submissions was that looking to the record
of the appellant this Court should not grant
reinstatement but award compensation. If the
termination of service is ab initio void and
inoperative, there is no question of granting
reinstatement because there is no cessation of
service and a mere declaration follows that he
continues to be in service with all consequential
benefits. Undoubtedly, in some decisions of this
Court such as Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
P.P. Chopra, (1) Lab LJ 63; and Hindustan Steel Ltd.,
Rourkela Vs. A.K. Roy, AIR 1970 SC 1401), it was
[2024:RJ-JD:44098] (3 of 4) [CW-8578/2008]
held that the Court before granting reinstatement
must weigh all the facts and exercise the discretion
properly whether to grant reinstatement or to award
compensation. But there is a catena of decisions
which rule that where the termination is illegal,
especially where there is an ineffective order of
retrenchment, there is neither termination nor
cession of service and a declaration follows that the
workman concerned continues to be in service with
all consequential benefits. No case is made out for
departure from this normally accepted approach of
the Courts in the field of social justice and we do not
propose to depart in this case."
In M/S/ Tulsi Das Paul Vs. The 2nd Labour Court, (1972)
4 SCC 205; Vikramadity Pandy Vs. Idustrial Tribunal, Lucknow,
(2001) 2 SCC 423; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when
the order of termination is found to be illegal, the general rule is
to grant reinstatement and compensation should be awarded in
exceptional circumstances.
In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as Class
IV employee in the year 1986 as Class IV employee and after
serving for nearly ten years, her services were terminated with
effect from 1-10-1996. The Labour Court, vide award dated 3-
11-2001, found the termination/retrenchment order illegal and
invalid, however, instead of granting the relief of reinstatement,
the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.15,500/- along
with interest @ 12% per annum. Therefore, keeping in view of
the law culled out in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court and the fact that the writ
petitions filed by similarly situated workmen mentioned
hereinabove challenging identical orders, were allowed by this
Court modifying the award impugned therein, the impugned
award requires modification by modifying the relief of
compensation to that of reinstatement.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned
Award Annx.1 dated 3-11-2001 and the Notification Annx.2
published on 10-6-2002 are modified to the extent that instead
of compensation, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement
with service; however she will not be entitled for any back
wages. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
on the post of Class IV within three months from the date of
[2024:RJ-JD:44098] (4 of 4) [CW-8578/2008]
submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner to
them. There shall be no order as to costs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that
the present writ petition may also be allowed in light of order ibid.
4. Prayer seems to be genuine.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in terms
of the order dated 16.04.2007 passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Smt. Dhuli (supra).
6. The order has been passed based on the submissions
made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine
the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in
case the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought.
7. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
