Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Babli vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:5776) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:5776]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4761/2004
Babli W/o Late Shri Jeevan Lal, Aged 43 Years, R/o Near SBI,
Suleman Ki Chali, Abu Road, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Chairman Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Jodhpur.
3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Abu Road, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. PRS Jodha
Mr. Himmat Singh
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
29/01/2025
1. The petitioner, wife of one Jeevan Lal has preferred the
present writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be
directed to provide her compassionate appointment and pay her
due back-wages, as awarded by the learned Labour Court.
2. To cut the long story short, suffice it to mention that the
petitioner's husband (hereinafter referred to as 'erstwhile
employee') had worked on casual basis as a Driver with the
respondent - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). According to the
assertion made by the erstwhile employee, he was appointed on
[2025:RJ-JD:5776] (2 of 6) [CW-4761/2004]
the post of Driver on 12.07.1979 and discharged his duties as
Driver and Conductor before he was placed under suspension on
19.07.1984. According to the erstwhile employee, he was
retrenched on 18.10.1984.
3. The erstwhile employee raised an industrial dispute and by
way of order dated 07.02.1990 a reference came to be made by
the State Government asking the Labour Court, Jodhpur to answer
as to whether the retrenchment of the erstwhile
employee/workman was valid? And if not, then to what relief he
was entitled to?
4. The learned Labour Court by its judgment & award dated
04.01.2001 allowed the claim filed by the erstwhile employee and
directed the Corporation to take him back on duties while also
observing that he would be deemed continuing in service. It was
also ordered that he shall be entitled for 25% of the back-wages
from the date of Reference i.e. 07.02.1990 to the date of
reinstatement.
5. After the award being passed, the erstwhile employee
persuaded the respondent - Corporation to take him back on
duties by way of making various representations.
6. The erstwhile employee however, passed away on
12.07.2002, awaiting the reinstatement.
7. The petitioner (widow of the erstwhile employee) has
approached with a case that despite the clear award dated
04.01.2001 and a number of representations, the respondent -
Corporation did not reinstate her husband. It is case set up by the
petitioner that had the respondent - Corporation reinstated her
husband within time, in the event of his untimely death, the
[2025:RJ-JD:5776] (3 of 6) [CW-4761/2004]
petitioner would have been entitled for retiral dues, family pension
and compassionate appointment. An incidental prayer of giving
compassionate appointment to the petitioner has also been made.
8. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
respondents have proceeded arbitrarily and in spite of the fact
that the award dated 04.01.2001 had been passed in favour of the
erstwhile employee, they have not reinstated him and thus,
deprived the erstwhile employee of his livelihood and taken away
the petitioner's rights of consequential benefits. He argued that if
the respondent - Corporation had done the needful before the
petitioner's husband had passed away, the petitioner would have
been entitled for other retiral/terminal dues including pension and
appointment on compassionate ground, in the face of the finding
that has been recorded by the Labour Court. He argued that since
the erstwhile employee has been ordered to be deemed in service
from the date of retrenchment i.e. 18.10.1984, the respondents
are required to pass formal order of reinstatement and other
consequential orders.
9. Mr. Jodha, learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation
on the other hand submitted that the General Manager (Legal) of
the Corporation had sent a U.O. Note to the effect that in case the
erstwhile employee/workman foregoes 25% arrears, he would be
taken back on duties and in furtherance whereof, the erstwhile
employee had given in writing that in case the Corporation takes
him back on duties with continuity in service and notional fixation,
he would forego the back-wages.
10. Learned counsel submitted that it is not a case where the
respondent - Corporation had totally ignored the rights of the
[2025:RJ-JD:5776] (4 of 6) [CW-4761/2004]
erstwhile employee; as a matter of fact they were in the process
of reinstating him, but unfortunately, before the same could be
done, the erstwhile employee passed away.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. According to this Court, it was misfortune of the erstwhile
employee that before he could be taken back on duties pursuant
to the award dated 04.01.2001 passed by the Labour Court, he
passed away.
13. It is not in dispute that the respondent - Corporation has
never challenged the award dated 04.01.2001 and the same has
attained finality. Had the award dated 04.01.2001 been
implemented, the erstwhile employee would have been on duties
when he passed away. The respondent - Corporation took about
two years in implementing an award and that has not only caused
grave injustice to the erstwhile employee, but also financial loss to
the petitioner.
14. Even if U.O. Note sent by the General Manager (Legal) of the
respondent - Corporation and the undertaking given by the
erstwhile employee is taken into account, then also, subject to
foregoing the back-wages, he was supposed to be reinstated but,
for the dismay of the petitioner, the same was not done by the
respondent - Corporation.
15. The approach of the respondent - Corporation, which is
indisputably an instrumentality of the State, has been arbitrary.
16. According to this Court, the petitioner is entitled for all the
reliefs as claimed, including the requisite order of compassionate
appointment. But since much water has flown under the bridge
[2025:RJ-JD:5776] (5 of 6) [CW-4761/2004]
down the river and the petitioner has crossed the age of
superannuation, such relief cannot be granted.
17. Since, the erstwhile employee has passed away, the order of
his reinstatement/joining can also not be passed.
18. At this juncture, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a lump-sum
compensation is awarded to her, which should be an amount which
can generate sufficient interest income, which she would
otherwise have received, had the respondent - Corporation done
what was legally expected of them to do.
19. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the
respondent - Corporation to pay a lump-sum amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement. The
award of the Labour Court dated 04.01.2001 stands modified
accordingly.
20. Since the respondent-Corporation has not reinstated the
petitioner's husband, the stipulation regarding 25% of back-wages
from the date 07.02.1990 upto the date when the petitioner
passed away i.e. 12.07.2002 would nevertheless be and
additionally be honoured by the Corporation. The said amount
shall be calculated within a period of two months from today and
paid on or before 31.05.2025. This amount shall carry the interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of award (04.01.2001) until the
same is actually paid to the petitioner. The respondent -
Corporation shall also pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of
litigation to the petitioner.
21. The respondent - Corporation shall pay the requisite amount
within a period of four months from today. The preference of
[2025:RJ-JD:5776] (6 of 6) [CW-4761/2004]
payment as directed by this Court in its order dated 10.12.2024
while deciding contempt petition - S.B. Writ Contempt Petition No.
1027/2018 and other connected matters so also the Circular dated
03.11.2021 issued by the respondent - Corporation shall not be
an impediment for the respondent - Corporation and entire
amount shall be paid by 30.06.2025.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
5-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
