Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur, Rajasthan v. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sub Division

: Mr. R.M. Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Avinash Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Hardik Singh, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ramdhan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 11/09/2025 Order

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The challenge is to the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge after examining the challenge raised by the workman to the award dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur has enhanced the compensation from Rs.2.5 lacs to Rs.5 lacs and refused reinstatement.

3. By the said award, the workman-writ petitioner was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/,-in lieu of reinstatement. The workman claimed before the learned Single Judge that as he was engaged on muster roll on 01.01.1986 and [2025:RJ-JP:36883-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-636/2023] had continued up to 30.04.1996. The workman was entitled to be declared semi permanent or permanent under the Work Charge Employees Service Rules(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and he, therefore, would be entitled to reinstatement and not for compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has failed to take notice of the fact that writ-petitioner/appellant had worked for more than 10 years and was on muster roll, therefore, he was entitled for benefit of Work Charge Rules and accordingly, he was to be given the semi permanency on completion of two years of work charge service and further permanency on completion of 10 years of work charge service. He therefore, was entitled to be reinstated. There was no occasion to grant compensation in these circumstances which were come on record.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent has taken us to the findings arrived at by the Labour Court, wherein the respondent had placed the various muster rolls during which the appellant-workman had performed duties as a daily wager. The documents had been placed in terms of an order passed by the Labour Court and an affidavit was filed in support of the documents to submit that apart from the fact that workman had worked in July, 1988 and August, 1988, he has also worked for certain period during the year 1991. The other muster rolls had not been produced, as the same were not available.

5. In view thereto, the Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the workman must have worked for the period from 1986 to [2025:RJ-JP:36883-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-636/2023] 1996 at various points of time and thus, he has worked for more than 240 days in an year and there being a violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947'), he would be entitled to get reinstatement or compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

6. Learned counsel further submits that it is not a case where the appellant-workman can claim to have been continuously working on work charge basis from 1986 till 1996. Learned counsel submits that the benefit under the Rules is applicable to a person who is appointed on work charge basis and placed on muster roll and perform his duties continuously for a period of 2 years/10 years which would result in his being granted semi- permanency or permanency.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant in his rejoinder submits that a presumption has to be drawn that he had been continuously worked. Learned counsel for the appellant also relies on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors.: AIR 2025 SC 296 to submit that a person has been working for 10 years or more, should be declared permanent and regularized. If the appellant would have been reinstated, he would have claimed regularization.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions.

9. If we notice the facts which have come on record before the Labour Court which remain unchallenged, the workman seems to have been working time and again for various periods during various years right from the year 1986. Thus, he can claim presumption of having worked for a period of more than 240 days in a particular year. More so, as the complete documents could not [2025:RJ-JP:36883-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-636/2023] be placed by the respondent. However, to prove that he was continuously working, onus relied on the appellant which he has not been able to perform. Drawing a presumption on account of non-production of the complete muster roll, the Labour Court reached to the conclusion that there has been a violation of Section 25(f) of the Act of 1947 and the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in lieu of reinstatement was granted, considering that the claim had been raised after three years and had been filed when the workman had already attained the age of 43 years in the year 2012.

10. We find that the learned Single Judge has also enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The aspect as to whether a person should be reinstated in service is required to be examined in light of the judgments passed from time to time by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that the only finding given by the Labour Court is violation of 25(F) of the Act of 1947 and there is no finding with regard to 25(G) and 25(H)of the Act of 1947 being violated.

11. In view thereto, automatic reinstatement is not called for. Having noticed the other circumstances, if the appellant has been directed to be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement, no objection can be made to such a view adopted by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge. The claim of the appellant for reinstatement, therefore fails.

12. The case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), is in relation to regularization of those who are already working in service and not for those whose services have been terminated. [2025:RJ-JP:36883-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-636/2023] The same would therefore, have no application to the facts of the present case.

13. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) is dismissed.

14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/30