Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Lal Salvi vs Judge, Labour Court Udaipur And Anr ... on 21 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:24820]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4648/2004

Ram Lal Salvi S/o Sh. Lalu Ram Salvi, aged about 35 years, R/o
Village Loda, Post Kharka, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. The Judge, Labour Court Udaipur.
2. The Finance Secretary, Group-IV, Secretariate Rajasthan,
Jaipur. [Rajasthan].
3. The Maha Nirikshak, Registration and Stamps, Rajasthan
Ajmer [Rajasthan].
4. The Up Maha Nirikshak & Collector-Stamps, Udaipur
[Rajasthan].
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Twinkle Purohit
                                Ms. Vasundhara Gopa
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted
                                by Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi and &
                                Mr. Harshvardhan Singh


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

21/05/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 30.10.2003, whereby, the reference made to the Industrial

Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur was decided holding

that the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement in service.

However, compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- has been

awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

3. Briefly stated the facts in the writ petition are that the

petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Department on the

post of Chowkidar on 07.06.1991 and the monthly salary being

paid to him at Rs.225/-. Since, the petitioner had discharged his

duties for a considerable period of time and was aggrieved of the

[2025:RJ-JD:24820] (2 of 7) [CW-4648/2004]

minimal salary being paid to him, he filed representations before

the respondent-Department for grant of regular pay scale.

However, the same was not granted to him. Subsequently, vide

order dated 30.09.1992 posts of Class-IV employee were

sanctioned in the respondent-Department for which the petitioner

preferred an application on 17.11.1993 requesting therein, to

consider his case for the newly created post.

Thereafter, the respondent-Department vide order dated

04.03.1993 terminated the services of the petitioner. The

petitioner challenging the said order preferred a case before the

Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Udaipur, and on

the strength of interim order dated 05.03.1993 passed in his

favour, he was continued on the service. However, he was not paid

the other services benefits. The respondents appeared before the

trial court and filed a reply. Subsequently, the said interim order

dated 05.03.1993 was vacated and after the final order of the

Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Udaipur dated

16.07.1994, the petitioner was removed by the respondent-

Department from the services vide order dated 26.07.1994.

Against his termination, the petitioner made a reference before

the appropriate government which in turn referred the dispute to

the Industrial Disputes Tribunal & Labour Court, Udaipur on

06.03.2000, where, the petitioner filed a claim petition and in

support thereof, he also filed his affidavits. The respondents also

filed a reply to the same along with the affidavits of the officers

concerned. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court framed two

issues in the matter and after a detailed discussion and

appreciation of the evidence brought before it, the reference was

[2025:RJ-JD:24820] (3 of 7) [CW-4648/2004]

decided vide order dated 30.10.2003, whereby, the termination

order of the petitioner dated 26.07.1994 was found to be unjust

and illegal. However, instead of directing reinstatement, the

Labour Court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-

to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that

the findings on issue No.1 very clearly show that the Tribunal has

found the termination order of the petitioner to be bad in the eyes

of law and unjust. She submits that the findings recorded by the

Tribunal on issue No.1 also show that although the petitioner is

not found eligible for regularization of his services, however, it has

been unequivocally held that the termination order dated

26.07.1994 is unjust and illegal. She further submits that even the

findings on issue No.2 are held in favour of the petitioner and it

has again been stated that the termination order dated

26.07.1994 is unjust and illegal and, therefore, a compensation to

the tune of Rs.50,000/- has wrongly been awarded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in

view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, the

compensation amount awarded in the present case is inadequate

and less and, therefore, the same should be suitably enhanced. To

buttress her contentions, she has relied upon a judgment dated

02.04.2024 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1920/2003 : Barkatulla vs. The State

of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein it was held that once it is

established that the workman has completed 240 days in a

calendar year, reinstatement is the normal rule, however,

[2025:RJ-JD:24820] (4 of 7) [CW-4648/2004]

considering the delay in litigation, compensation may be awarded

in that case instead of reinstatement.

She submits that once there is finding of fact to the extent

that petitioner has completed 240 days in a Calendar year, then in

ordinary course, the order of reinstatement should have been

passed. However, since the matter is old one, therefore, the

Labour Court has awarded the compensation instead of awarding

reinstatement. She, therefore, prays that the awarded

compensation may be suitably enhanced in the present set of

facts.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and submits that the Labour Court has rightly adjudged

the compensation of Rs.50,000/- in the present case. He further

submits that since the petitioner has served the Department only

for a period of three years, therefore, the compensation of

Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is just, proper and in

accordance with the law. He, therefore, prays that no interference

be made in the order dated 30.10.2003 and the writ petition may

be dismissed.

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant records of the case including the

impugned order dated 30.10.2003.

7. The undisputed facts in the present case clearly show that

the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar on

07.06.1991 on the monthly salary of Rs.225/-. The petitioner

continued in the employment of the respondents till his services

were finally terminated on 26.07.1994. The findings of fact

[2025:RJ-JD:24820] (5 of 7) [CW-4648/2004]

recorded by the Labour Court clearly show that the petitioner has

completed a period of 240 days in one Calendar year. The findings

recorded on issue No.1 clearly show that though the petitioner has

not been able to make out the case for regularization of his

services, but the termination of services vide order dated

26.07.1994 is clearly bad in the eyes of law. It is further evident

from the record that the petitioner had completed 240 days of

service in one calendar year. Even on issue No.2, a categorical

finding has been recorded that the order of termination dated

26.07.1994 is unjust and arbitrary and, therefore, the petitioner

has been awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

8. This Court also takes note of the fact that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of B.S.N.L. vs. Bhurumal decided on

11.12.2013 reported in AIR 2014 SC 1188 has awarded a

lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- while having considered

the inflation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned

case has held as under:-

"23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the

[2025:RJ-JD:24820] (6 of 7) [CW-4648/2004]

workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

24. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non- payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

25. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized under some policy but the concerned workman terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied."

[2025:RJ-JD:24820] (7 of 7) [CW-4648/2004]

9. This Court is of the considered view that a period of more

than 31 years have been passed since the petitioner has been

terminated. In such situation, instead of passing an order of

reinstatement, the order of compensation will meet the ends of

justice in the present set of facts. The quantification of the

compensation made by the Labour Court appears to be on the

lower side and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of

justice will be met if the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is enhanced

to Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by the respondent-Department to the

petitioner.

10. It is made clear that if an amount of Rs.50,000/- has already