HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No v. Shri Ram Ji Lal S/o Sh. Muliya Koli, Village Post Jastana Tehsil Boli, District

Judgment

2. ----Petitioners Versus Shri Ram Ji Lal S/o Sh. Muliya Koli, Village Post Jastana Tehsil Boli, District Swaimadhopur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Saumil Sharma on behalf of Mr.Gopal Krishan Sharma, Addl.GC. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kailash Chander Sharma with Ms.Nidhi Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR Case No.72/2000 by which termination order dated 04.07.1982 of the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) has been quashed and set-aside and a direction has been issued to the petitioner-department to reinstate him back with continuity in service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-department submits that the workman raised an industrial dispute against his termination order 04.07.1982 before the Labour Court, on the ground that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions, contained under Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act of 1947"). Counsel submits that dispute was raised by the respondent-workman, after a delay of 16 years [2025:RJ-JP:8713] (2 of 6) [CW-3369/2017] and he has failed to establish before the Labour Court that the petitioner was “industry” as defined under Section 2(J) of the Act of 1947. Counsel submits that overlooking these material aspects of the matter, the award impugned has been passed, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner- department and submits that he has worked with the petitioner- department as daily wager on the post of Beldar from the month of June, 1977 and he continued on the said post till 04.07.1982, but without following the process contained under Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act of 1947, his services were terminated. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, an industrial dispute has been raised by the respondent-workman, by way of filing a claim petition and the same was rightly allowed by the Labour Court by recording a finding of fact which requires no interference of this Court. Counsel submits that during pendency of this petition, the respondent-workman has attained the age of superannuation and he has crossed the age of retirement, hence, his reinstatement is not possible, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the petitioner-department to pay adequate amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, looking to the length of service of the respondent-workman.

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

5. Perusal of the record indicates that services of the respondent-workman were taken by the petitioner-department on the post of Beldar with effect from June, 1977 till July 1982. When [2025:RJ-JP:8713] (3 of 6) [CW-3369/2017] the services of the respondent-workman were terminated on

04.07.1982, he raised an industrial dispute by way of filing a statement of claim, which has been allowed by quashing his termination order and order of reinstatement has been passed in his favour with continuity in service.

6. A finding of fact has been recorded that prior to passing the impugned termination order of the respondent-workman, the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the impugned award was passed by passing a reasoned and speaking order. This Court finds no error in the impugned award and the same requires interference of this Court.

7. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether under the changed circumstances, when the respondent-workman has crossed the age of retirement, his reinstatement is not possible, and hence, looking to his length of service, i.e., 5 years, the workman is entitled to get a lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

8. It is settled proposition of law, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court through catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and if he proves it before the Court by leading cogent evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

9. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that [2025:RJ-JP:8713] (4 of 6) [CW-3369/2017] when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

10. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

11. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- “33. 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 25-F 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 workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. 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 25-Fof the [2025:RJ-JP:8713] (5 of 6) [CW-3369/2017] Disputes Act, even after Industrial 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.”

12. 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 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. [2025:RJ-JP:8713] (6 of 6) [CW-3369/2017]

4. Having considered the overall 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 tune of`2,50,000/- (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.”

13. 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), the instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the petitioner-department to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three Lakhs) to the respondent-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

14. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner-department fails to comply with this order within the stipulated time, i.e., three months, then the respondent-workman would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment.

15. The award of the Labour Court dated 18.10.2016 accordingly stands modified, in the above terms.

16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Aayush Sharma /112 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J