Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests v. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No

: Mr. Pankaj Kumar for Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Joshi-AGC with Mr. Deepak Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/02/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) challenging the award dated 22.07.2013 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur, by which the statement of claim submitted by the workman has been allowed and the respondents have been directed to pay a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

2.. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that the workman was engaged as a daily wager in the month of May, 1987 and he continued to work till July, 1988 and without issuing any notice or without paying any amount of compensation, his [2025:RJ-JP:6739] (2 of 4) [CW-20761/2013] services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that the workman raised an industrial dispute and established on record before the Labour Court that he has worked with the respondents for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Counsel submits that this fact was appreciated by the Labour Court but the petitioner was awarded only a petty amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- which is inadequate, hence, looking to the length of service of the workman, he is entitled to get suitable amount of compensation.

3. Per contra, counsel for the State respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the dispute was raised after nine years, hence considering this facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has rightly granted a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the workman by passing a reasoned speaking order, which requires no interference of this Court.

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

5. This fact is not in dispute that the workman was engaged as a daily wager in the month of May 1987 and he continued to work till July, 1988 and his services were terminated by the respondents on 01.08.1988 without issuing any notice or without granting any payment of compensation and said act on the part of the respondent was found to be invalid as per the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947 by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the [2025:RJ-JP:6739] (3 of 4) [CW-20761/2013] workman established the fact on record that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

6. 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. 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.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that the finding of facts [2025:RJ-JP:6739] (4 of 4) [CW-20761/2013] recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. However, considering that the reinstatement is not automatic, this Court deems it just and proper to enhance the award of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

8. Looking to the fact that the workman has rendered his services with the employer for a period of one year and the amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded to the workman is inadequate, the workman is entitled to get lumpsum amount compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

9. Accordingly, the employer is directed to pay enhanced amount of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement as observed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the amount is not paid to the workman within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the workman would be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual realization.

10. The award of the Labour Court dated 22.07.2013 stands modified in the above terms.

11. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

12. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Ashu/93 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J