The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar v. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar Ors. and in other batch matters, wher

: Mr. Shubham Gupta on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: ::

17.04.2025

25.04.2025

1. The instant writ petition is directed against the award dated

28.07.2000 passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota in reference case No. 66/93, whereby, termination of the workman from service w.e.f. 01.04.1991 has been held to be improper and illegal; and consequently the directions for reinstatement along with 30% back wages and continuity in service have been given.

2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners, while laying challenge to the impugned award dated 28.07.2000, has argued that the non-petitioner-workman has utterly failed to prove that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) and it was also not appreciated [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (2 of 5) [CW-3937/2001] by the Tribunal that the work for which the non-petitioner- workman was engaged, was no longer in existence. It has also been argued that learned Tribunal has also not taken into account that even retrenchment compensation was paid to the non- petitioner-workman, of course, much after his termination of service, yet there was sufficient compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

3. I have examined the material on record and have also scrutinized the impugned award.

4. The factual findings given by learned Tribunal with regard to rendering continuous service, availability of work and non- compliance of the proviso of Section 25F cannot be interfered in a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. However, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the termination order was held illegal, even then looking to the total period of service rendered by the non-petitioner-workman, which was hardly one year and seven months; after around 34 years from the date of termination, it would not be justifiable to reinstate the petitioner back in service and instead of reinstatement, relief of compensation can be awarded.

6. In order to support the aforesaid contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 406/2018: The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar & Ors. and in other batch matters, where after considering as many as 19 judgments delivered by the Hon’ble [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (3 of 5) [CW-3937/2001] Supreme Court as well as by this Court, following finding has been given by the Division Bench of this Court. “It is, no doubt, true that the relief of reinstatement with back wages or without back wages can be granted if the retrenchment is found to be illegal but we do not find the aforesaid relief is appropriate in the facts of these cases. It is not only that mode of appointments has been shown to be as is coming out from the record but the period subsequent to termination till date is of more than 25 to 30 years and even more. In few cases, even the workmen have already attained the age of superannuation thus relief of reinstatement cannot be granted. The intervening period of twenty five to thirty years is substantial period because, ordinarily, an employee remains in service for 35 years. It can be less or more in some cases. Accordingly, the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate in these cases. If the aforesaid relief is not to be given then question remains about back wages which otherwise should not be granted without reinstatement. Taking into consideration the period of litigation before this court and the period intervening, we are of the opinion that the non-appellants- workmen should be awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It would be even for the reason that even if reinstatement in few cases is made, workman at the advance age would be working only for few years and presumably they may have settled in their life during intervening period of 25 to 30 years or more. Accordingly, lump sum compensation is awarded to the workmen taking into consideration the period of employment. Therefore, we order that if a workman has worked upto one year, he is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. If a workman had worked upto two years, he is awarded Rs.1,50,000/-. If a workman has worked upto three years, he is awarded Rs.2,50,000/- and if a workman has worked for more than three years, he is awarded Rs.3,00,000/-. “

7. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record one order dated 01.11.2023 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6203/2017: Assistant Engineer, PWD Sub Division, Newai [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (4 of 5) [CW-3937/2001] District Tonk Vs. Shri Radhe Shyam, where this Court has held as under:-

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. However, considering that the reinstatement is not automatic, this Court deem it just and proper to enhance the award of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

12. Looking to the fact that the respondent-workman has rendered his services with the petitioner for a period of more than five years i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1985 till 31.03.1990, the respondent-workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.”

8. In the light of the above, where in the similar circumstances and more particularly, appreciating the fact that termination had taken place long back, awarding benefit of retrenchment along with continuity in service is not proper and award passed by the Labour Court, Kota, with regard to retrenchment and back wages deserve to be modified. It would be in the interest of justice that in the instant case also the award dated 28.07.2000 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota, is modified in the light of earlier judgments and since the non-petitioner has worked only for a period of one year and seven months prior to his termination and his appointment was also not regular in nature, therefore, instead of benefit of reinstatement with back wages, the respondent employee is entitled for compensation in the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (5 of 5) [CW-3937/2001]

9. Accordingly the petitioners-employer is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the non-petitioner-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.

10. With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition is disposed of.

11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. pcg/1 (ANAND SHARMA),J

: Mr. Shubham Gupta on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: ::

17.04.2025

25.04.2025

1. The instant writ petition is directed against the award dated

28.07.2000 passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota in reference case No. 66/93, whereby, termination of the workman from service w.e.f. 01.04.1991 has been held to be improper and illegal; and consequently the directions for reinstatement along with 30% back wages and continuity in service have been given.

2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners, while laying challenge to the impugned award dated 28.07.2000, has argued that the non-petitioner-workman has utterly failed to prove that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) and it was also not appreciated [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (2 of 5) [CW-3937/2001] by the Tribunal that the work for which the non-petitioner- workman was engaged, was no longer in existence. It has also been argued that learned Tribunal has also not taken into account that even retrenchment compensation was paid to the non- petitioner-workman, of course, much after his termination of service, yet there was sufficient compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

3. I have examined the material on record and have also scrutinized the impugned award.

4. The factual findings given by learned Tribunal with regard to rendering continuous service, availability of work and non- compliance of the proviso of Section 25F cannot be interfered in a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. However, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the termination order was held illegal, even then looking to the total period of service rendered by the non-petitioner-workman, which was hardly one year and seven months; after around 34 years from the date of termination, it would not be justifiable to reinstate the petitioner back in service and instead of reinstatement, relief of compensation can be awarded.

6. In order to support the aforesaid contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 406/2018: The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar & Ors. and in other batch matters, where after considering as many as 19 judgments delivered by the Hon’ble [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (3 of 5) [CW-3937/2001] Supreme Court as well as by this Court, following finding has been given by the Division Bench of this Court. “It is, no doubt, true that the relief of reinstatement with back wages or without back wages can be granted if the retrenchment is found to be illegal but we do not find the aforesaid relief is appropriate in the facts of these cases. It is not only that mode of appointments has been shown to be as is coming out from the record but the period subsequent to termination till date is of more than 25 to 30 years and even more. In few cases, even the workmen have already attained the age of superannuation thus relief of reinstatement cannot be granted. The intervening period of twenty five to thirty years is substantial period because, ordinarily, an employee remains in service for 35 years. It can be less or more in some cases. Accordingly, the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate in these cases. If the aforesaid relief is not to be given then question remains about back wages which otherwise should not be granted without reinstatement. Taking into consideration the period of litigation before this court and the period intervening, we are of the opinion that the non-appellants- workmen should be awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It would be even for the reason that even if reinstatement in few cases is made, workman at the advance age would be working only for few years and presumably they may have settled in their life during intervening period of 25 to 30 years or more. Accordingly, lump sum compensation is awarded to the workmen taking into consideration the period of employment. Therefore, we order that if a workman has worked upto one year, he is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. If a workman had worked upto two years, he is awarded Rs.1,50,000/-. If a workman has worked upto three years, he is awarded Rs.2,50,000/- and if a workman has worked for more than three years, he is awarded Rs.3,00,000/-. “

7. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record one order dated 01.11.2023 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6203/2017: Assistant Engineer, PWD Sub Division, Newai [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (4 of 5) [CW-3937/2001] District Tonk Vs. Shri Radhe Shyam, where this Court has held as under:-

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. However, considering that the reinstatement is not automatic, this Court deem it just and proper to enhance the award of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

12. Looking to the fact that the respondent-workman has rendered his services with the petitioner for a period of more than five years i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1985 till 31.03.1990, the respondent-workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.”

8. In the light of the above, where in the similar circumstances and more particularly, appreciating the fact that termination had taken place long back, awarding benefit of retrenchment along with continuity in service is not proper and award passed by the Labour Court, Kota, with regard to retrenchment and back wages deserve to be modified. It would be in the interest of justice that in the instant case also the award dated 28.07.2000 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota, is modified in the light of earlier judgments and since the non-petitioner has worked only for a period of one year and seven months prior to his termination and his appointment was also not regular in nature, therefore, instead of benefit of reinstatement with back wages, the respondent employee is entitled for compensation in the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. [2025:RJ-JP:17320] (5 of 5) [CW-3937/2001]

9. Accordingly the petitioners-employer is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the non-petitioner-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.

10. With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition is disposed of.

11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. pcg/1 (ANAND SHARMA),J