[2025:RJ-JP:6043] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7885/2017 Shri Manohar Lal @ Manohari S/o. Shri Ghashiram, R/o Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur Through Regional President, Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Devision Deeg, Bharatpur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Joshi, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/02/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No.82/1994 (2251/2014) by which the lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been granted to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement in service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar by the respondents on 01.09.1986 and he continued to work in their office till 30.06.1990 but without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation, his services were terminated which has resulted in violation of mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’). Learned counsels submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by way of filing [2025:RJ-JP:6043] (2 of 6) [CW-7885/2017] statement of claim but instead of passing an order of reinstatement, a petty amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- only has been awarded. Learned counsel submits that looking to the length of service of the petitioner either the order of reinstatement could have been passed or sufficient amount of compensation have been given, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the nature of engagement of the petitioner is temporary and the petitioner was not a permanent employee and the dispute was also raised after a delay. Learned counsel submits that all these material aspects of the matter, the Labour Court has awarded suitable amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner and the said amount is adequate, which does not need further enhancement and the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be upheld and interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar on 01.09.1986 and he continued to work with the respondent-Department till 30.06.1990. This fact is not in dispute that without following mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents. The petitioner has established the fact on record that he worked with the respondents for more than 240 days i.e. for a period of more than [2025:RJ-JP:6043] (3 of 6) [CW-7885/2017] three years, hence under these circumstances, the impugned termination order of the petitioner was held to be invalid. 6. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is whether the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner is sufficient or the same is liable to be enhanced by this Court. 7. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 8. 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 I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 9. In Incharge Officer and Ors. 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. 10. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:6043] (4 of 6) [CW-7885/2017] 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 be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 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.” 11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special [2025:RJ-JP:6043] (5 of 6) [CW-7885/2017] 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 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.” 12. Looking to the length of service of the petitioner rendered in the Office of the respondents with effect from 01.09.1986 till 30.06.1990, i.e., more than three years and considering the above facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of [2025:RJ-JP:6043] (6 of 6) [CW-7885/2017] Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lakhs only) to the petitioner, in lieu of reinstatement in service. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, after adjusting the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court (i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner). In case, the enhanced amount is not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment. 14. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court dated 22.12.2016 stands modified, in the above terms and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/55