Nagar, Bharatpur v. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Dholpur

Judgment

1. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Dholpur (Rajasthan)

2. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Saipau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Bari-First, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. TC Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swamil Sharma for Mr. GK Sharma, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/02/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against impugned award dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred as 'the Labour Court') in LCR No.457/2014, by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred as 'the workman') has been partly allowed and his termination order dated 01.01.1991 has been quashed and set aside and the respondents have been directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. (2 of 5) [CW-3625/2020]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Baildar on 01.07.1984 and continued to work with the respondent till 31.12.1990 and his services were terminated on 01.01.1991 without issuing any notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing and the said order was passed in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). Counsel submits that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court against his termination order and this fact was proved that before terminating his services, the respondents have not complied the provisions contained under Section 25G and 25H o the Act of 1947, but even then, a very petty amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- only has been awarded. Counsel submits that looking to the total length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than six and half years, the petitioner is entitled to get suitable amount of compensation, hence, the impugned award is liable to be modified.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the dispute was raised by the petitioner after a delay of more than 29 years and considering this material aspect of the matter, the Labour Court has awarded sufficient amount of compensation i.e. Rs.40,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. (3 of 5) [CW-3625/2020]

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged as Baildar on 01.07.1984 and continued to work with the respondent till 31.12.1990 and his services were terminated on 01.01.1991. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has raised the industrial dispute after a delay of more than 29 years and this fact is also not in dispute that he has established his case before the Labour Court that there was violation of mandatory provisions contained under Section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947. Considering the delay of 29 years, the Labour Court has passed an order directing the respondents to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation.

6. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is that 'Whether looking to the length of service i.e. six and half years, the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- is adequate or not ?'

7. In a similar matter, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. (4 of 5) [CW-3625/2020] Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be `1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been `2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. Having considered the overall 4. circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the (approximately tune of`2,50,000/- equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.”

8. Looking to the fact that the workman has rendered his services with the respondent for six and half years w.e.f.

01.07.1984 till 31.12.1990, the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- is inadequate. The petitioner is entitled to get lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

9. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) to the petitioner after adjusting the amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as observed herein above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (5 of 5) [CW-3625/2020]

10. It is made clear that, if the amount is not paid to the workman within the stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till its actual payment.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned award stands modified.

12. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD.252