BENCH AT JAIPUR v. HkjriqjA

: Mr. Chinmay Saxena for Mr. Jag Mohan Saxena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner has led challenge to the impugned award dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No.295/1992 by which his statement of claim against his impugned termination order dated 07.09.1988 has been allowed in part and instead of passing the order of reinstatement, compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on 17.09.1984 and his services were terminated by the respondents on 07.09.1988 without issuing any notice and without paying any compensation and the termination order was passed in utter violation of the (2 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner raised industrial dispute by way of filing claim petition before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, but while passing the order impugned a petty and inadequate amount of compensation has been granted to the petitioner i.e. Rs.25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Counsel submits that looking to the length of the service of the petitioner i.e. more than four years, he is entitled to get suitable amount of compensation.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the services of the petitioner were purely temporary and the same were not terminated, instead, the petitioner himself abandoned the service. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not liable to get any enhanced amount of compensation. The Labour Court has passed just and cogent order by which adequate amount of compensation i.e. Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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 by the respondent on 17.09.1984 and his services (3 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] were taken continuously till 07.09.1988 and the same were terminated without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation to him. Such action on the part of the respondent has violated the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. This fact has been established by the petitioner on the record that the petitioner worked with the respondent for more than 240 days in a calendar year and a finding of fact has also been record in this regard that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

6. Now, the question remains for consideration of this Court is that 'Whether the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is adequate or is liable to be enhanced looking to the length of service of the petitioner?'

7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked with the respondent w.e.f. 17.09.1984 till 07.09.1988 that is for about four years. Looking to the length of service of the petitioner, the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is not adequate, which is liable to the enhanced by this Court.

8. 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. Special (4 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] 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 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.” of`2,50,000/-

9. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than four years, the petitioner is entitled to get a lump sum amount of compensation Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) in lieu of reinstatement.

10. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. Needless to observe that if the order passed by this Court is not complied by the respondents within above stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest (5 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] @9% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned award till its actual payment.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned award dated 29.10.2010 stands modified.

13. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the observations made against the petitioner with regard to use of his caste while getting appointment and for taking appropriate criminal action against the petitioner, was totally unwarranted for deciding the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. The aforesaid observation made by the Labour Court stands expunged. KuD/91 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

: Mr. Chinmay Saxena for Mr. Jag Mohan Saxena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner has led challenge to the impugned award dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No.295/1992 by which his statement of claim against his impugned termination order dated 07.09.1988 has been allowed in part and instead of passing the order of reinstatement, compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on 17.09.1984 and his services were terminated by the respondents on 07.09.1988 without issuing any notice and without paying any compensation and the termination order was passed in utter violation of the (2 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner raised industrial dispute by way of filing claim petition before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, but while passing the order impugned a petty and inadequate amount of compensation has been granted to the petitioner i.e. Rs.25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Counsel submits that looking to the length of the service of the petitioner i.e. more than four years, he is entitled to get suitable amount of compensation.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the services of the petitioner were purely temporary and the same were not terminated, instead, the petitioner himself abandoned the service. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not liable to get any enhanced amount of compensation. The Labour Court has passed just and cogent order by which adequate amount of compensation i.e. Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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 by the respondent on 17.09.1984 and his services (3 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] were taken continuously till 07.09.1988 and the same were terminated without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation to him. Such action on the part of the respondent has violated the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. This fact has been established by the petitioner on the record that the petitioner worked with the respondent for more than 240 days in a calendar year and a finding of fact has also been record in this regard that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

6. Now, the question remains for consideration of this Court is that 'Whether the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is adequate or is liable to be enhanced looking to the length of service of the petitioner?'

7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked with the respondent w.e.f. 17.09.1984 till 07.09.1988 that is for about four years. Looking to the length of service of the petitioner, the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is not adequate, which is liable to the enhanced by this Court.

8. 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. Special (4 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] 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 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.” of`2,50,000/-

9. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than four years, the petitioner is entitled to get a lump sum amount of compensation Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) in lieu of reinstatement.

10. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. Needless to observe that if the order passed by this Court is not complied by the respondents within above stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest (5 of 5) [CW-1372/2011] @9% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned award till its actual payment.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned award dated 29.10.2010 stands modified.

13. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the observations made against the petitioner with regard to use of his caste while getting appointment and for taking appropriate criminal action against the petitioner, was totally unwarranted for deciding the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. The aforesaid observation made by the Labour Court stands expunged. KuD/91 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J