[2025:RJ-JP:14200] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10914/2008 Radhey Shyam Son Of Shri Prabhu Lal Gurjar, Thikriya Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division Uniyara, District Tonk 2. The Judge Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DC Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order award dated 31.07.2008 passed by the Labour Court-2, Jaipur (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in LCR Case No.1528/1998, by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner-workman against his termination order dated 01.08.1989 has been rejected. 2. The workman raised an industrial dispute against his termination order before the Labour Court by way of filing claim petition indicating therein that he was engaged as daily wager vide order dated 05.01.1987, but his services were terminated vide order dated 01.08.1989 without issuing any notice and without paying any compensation and the same was done without [2025:RJ-JP:14200] (2 of 3) [CW-10914/2008] following the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). 3. After hearing the arguments, the Labour Court recorded a finding that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, but looking to the fact that the petitioner might have worked elsewhere and might have received wages from there, no orders were passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court once a finding of fact has been recorded on the record that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, then certainly, the Labour Court might have granted some relief to the petitioner. 5. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has worked w.e.f. 05.01.1987 till 31.07.1989, i.e., for more than two years, he is not entitled to be reinstated back in service, but certainly, he is entitled to get lump sum amount of compensation in lieu of his reinstatement. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to pay lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Needless to observe that in case, the respondents fails to comply the order passed by this Court, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% p.a. from the date of passing of the award till its actual payment. [2025:RJ-JP:14200] (3 of 3) [CW-10914/2008] 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stand disposed of and the impugned award stands modified. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J RONAK JAIMAN/76