[2025:RJ-JP:11549] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3512/2025 Mukesh Kumar Kahar son of Shri Hazari Lal, aged about 40 Years, resident of Balapur, Kunhadi, Kota ----Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor, Kota University Rawatbhata (Diet Bhawan) Kota. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Nidhi Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/03/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in LCR Case No.153/2008, by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner-workman has been partly allowed and his termination order dated 30.10.2004 has been held to be invalid and the respondents have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager on 27.01.2004 and he continued to work till 29.10.2004 and on 30.10.2004 his services were discontinued by the respondents without issuing any notice and without paying any compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:11549] (2 of 4) [CW-3512/2025] Counsel submits that the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents is in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that once the termination order of the petitioner was found to be invalid, the Labour Court could have granted adequate amount of compensation to him. Counsel submits that the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced by this Court. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the total period of service of the petitioner with the respondent was nine months. He worked with the respondent w.e.f. 27.01.2004 till 29.10.2004. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked with the respondents for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year and his services were terminated by the respondents illegally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court was right in holding that there was non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 5. Looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. nine months only, a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Labour Court, which is sufficient and not inadequate, in accordance with the view taken by 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 [2025:RJ-JP:11549] (3 of 4) [CW-3512/2025] 20.08.2019. Para Nos.3 and 4 of the above-said judgment are reads 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.” 6. Considering the law propounded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to get any further amount. The order passed by the Labour Court is just and proper, which requires no interference of this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:11549] (4 of 4) [CW-3512/2025] 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stand dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/57