Dogri, Post - Ramerdarra, Teh. Sapotara, District - Karauli v. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Division, Moral Malarana

Judgment

1. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Division, Moral Malarana, District Karauli.

2. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Swai Madhopur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8771/2019 Ramjilal S/o Sundarlal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Bandha Ki Dogari, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division Karauli, Presently Irrigation Morel, Sub-Division Malarana Chod, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9003/2019

Ramswaroop S/o Shri Sawaliya, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Amargarh, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division Karauli, Presently Irrigation Morel, Sub-Division Malarana Chod, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

2. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Ms.Shalini Yadav Mr.S. N. Kumawat Ms.Shivani Paliwal [2025:RJ-JP:8714] (2 of 8) [CW-15633/2019] Mr.Rakesh Vashistha for Mr.Indresh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Saumil Sharma for Mr.Gopal Krishan Sharma, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/02/2025

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, all these matters are taken up and decided together by this common order.

2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners- workmen (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workmen’) challenging the awards dated 02.08.2019, 14.12.2018 & 04.01.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) in case Nos: LCR 2159/2014 (74/2006), 2427/2014 (32/2005) & 2454/2014 (22/2005), whereby termination of services of the workmen has been held to be invalid and the respondents-employer (hereinafter referred to as ‘employer’) has been directed to pay compensation to the workmen, in lieu of their reinstatement.

3. Learned counsel for the workmen submits that all the workmen were engaged on the post of Beldar in the Office of the employer and they have worked on the said post for a considerable time and their services were terminated by the employer without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation to them, which has resulted in violation [2025:RJ-JP:8714] (3 of 8) [CW-15633/2019] of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947').

4. Counsel submits that all the workmen raised industrial dispute by way of filing three different claim petitions and all the three claims were decided on different dates, i.e., on 02.08.2019,

14.12.2018 & 04.01.2019 by passing three separate awards. Counsel submits that the workmen-Ramsahay has worked with the employer for a period of more than two years and four months while a petty amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- only has been awarded. Counsel submits that likewise, the workmen- Ramjilal and Ramswaroop have worked with the employer for more than three years, but a petty amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only has been awarded to them respectively.

5. Counsel submits that once the Labour Court was of the view that the impugned termination order of the workmen was not sustainable in the eye of law as the same was in contravention of the mandatory provisions, contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 then, under such circumstances, adequate amount of compensation should have been granted and looking to the length of their services, interference of this Court is warranted.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the workmen and submits that the industrial dispute was raised by the workmen, after a delay of considerable time, hence, under these circumstances, the Labour Court has passed just and reasoned order and an adequate amount of compensation has been awarded to each of the petitioners, in lieu of their reinstatement, which requires no interference of this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:8714] (4 of 8) [CW-15633/2019]

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

8. This fact is not in dispute that the workmen were engaged as Beldar in the Office of the employer and they have worked with the respondent-Department for a considerable time. This fact is also not in dispute that the services of the workmen were terminated by the employer without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation and such act was done by the respondents in utter violation of the mandate provided under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947.

9. This fact is also not in dispute that this fact was very much appreciated by the Labour Court, while passing the impugned award and the Labour Court was of the view that reinstatement is not a rule of thumb and considering the material aspect that the dispute has been raised after a considerable delay, the order of compensation has been passed in favour of the workmen.

10. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to "whether looking to the length of service of the petitioners, the amount of compensation granted to them is adequate or it requires to be enhanced?"

11. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:8714] (5 of 8) [CW-15633/2019]

12. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:8714] (6 of 8) [CW-15633/2019] Disputes Act, be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-Fof the Industrial even after 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.”

15. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:8714] (7 of 8) [CW-15633/2019] 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.”11. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner-Ramsahay worked with the respondent-department for a period of more than 2 years and 4 months and he has been granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- only. Likewise, the petitioners Ramjilal Ramswaroop have worked with the respondent- department for more than three years and they have been granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Looking to the length of services of the petitioner-workmen, the amount of compensation is inadequate, which needs to be suitably enhanced by this Court.

16. In view of the above, the workman-Ramsahay is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Likewise, the workmen- Ramjilal and Ramswaroop are entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- each, looking to their continuity of service rendered with the respondent-department.

17. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed with the aforesaid direction to the respondent-department to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

18. It is made clear that in case, the direction issued by this Court is not complied with by the respondent-department within [2025:RJ-JP:8714] (8 of 8) [CW-15633/2019] the above stipulated time, then all the petitioners would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of passing of this order, till actual payment.

19. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned aforesaid awards stand modified, in the above terms.

20. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Aayush Sharma /122-124 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J