HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No v. Murari Lal s/o Moonga Lal, r/o Shahbad District Kota

1/1. Hemlata D/o Late Shri Murari Lal W/o Shri Mohan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Jain Mandir Road, Kolaras District Shivpuri (M.p.) Pin Code 473770. 1/2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Murari Lal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Near Suraj Pole Gate, Shahbad, District Baran- 325217 (Rajasthan). 1/3. Shanti Bai W/o Late Shri Murari Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Near Suraj Pole Gate, Shahbad, District Baran- 325217(Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh, Ms. Prachi Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 21/05/2025 Order

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Kota in regular First Appeal No.113/99 titled as "Murari Lal Vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Anr." whereby the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the impugned [2025:RJ-JP:21477] (2 of 4) [CSA-99/2003] judgment and decree dated 26.09.1994 in Civil Suit No.127/86 titled as "Murari Lal Vs. R.S.R.T.C." passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (North), Kota, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff-Murari Lal (Since Deceased), filed a suit while stating that on 23.09.1981, he was appointed on the post of Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the R.S.R.T.C.") and later on, he was removed from the service on 31.01.1986. The respondent/plaintiff has assailed the order of punishment, thereafter, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit vide order dated 26.09.1994. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal, and the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 18.10.2002, and modified the order passed by the learned Trial Court and set aside the order dated 31.01.1986 to the extent of forfeiting the salary of the appellant and directed the appellant to pass a fresh proportionate penalty order.

3. The present second appeal was admitted by this Court on

03.01.2006.

4. During the course of the hearing, learned counsels for the parties jointly submitted that it is not disputed that the deceased respondent-Murari Lal, expired during the pendency of appeal and he worked as a Conductor in the RSRTC from 23.09.1981 till

31.01.1986. Therefore, to settle the pending dispute, the appellants are ready to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of [2025:RJ-JP:21477] (3 of 4) [CSA-99/2003] ; " Deputy Conservator Of Forests & Anr. Vs. Sharfuddin" D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 700/2018 , decided on

20.08.2019, wherein this Court has held as under: "1. The appellants state that the Award of the Labour Court which was not interfered by the Single Judge, was erroneous. 2. The respondent-workman had raised an industrial dispute in 2003 complaining that the termination of his employment on 30.12.1996, was in violation of Section 25-F and Section 25- G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). The Award of 28.9.2016 upheld his contention and directed his reinstatement but denied him back wages. The learned Single Judge, to whom the State approached, complaining that the Award was erroneous, rejected the writ petition in limine. Appeal

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 Writ Ram & Ors.-D.B.Special 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. [2025:RJ-JP:21477] (4 of 4) [CSA-99/2003]

5. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms."

5. That counsel for the parties jointly submit that looking at the tenure of service of the deceased respondent, he has worked for more than three years. Therefore, as per the judgment of Deputy Conservator Of Forests (supra) , the respondent is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

6. Having considered the aforesaid submission made by both the parties, and while considering the fact that the workman was in service for at least 5 years, and he has expired during pendency of this appeal and since both the parties have arrived at an agreement that, in order to settle the entire dispute, the appellants will pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal representatives (respondents No.1/1 to 1/3) of the deceased respondent-Murari Lal.

7. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed off in view of the understanding arrived at between the parties.

8. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal representatives (respondents No.1/1 to 1/3) of the deceased respondent-Murari Lal as full and final compensation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The impugned judgment and decree hereby stands modified to the above extent.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/13 Whether Reportable : Yes/No