HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7063/2019 Mahendra Lal Saini S/o Surajmal @ Surajbhan Saini, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Mohalla Khohara, Alwar ----Petitioner Versus Rajrishi College, Through Principal Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy.GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was engaged by the respondent as a daily wager on 01.03.1993 and he worked till 01.04.1994 and all of a sudden, his services were discontinued without issuing any notice to him, and without paying any compensation to him, in utter violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). Counsel submits that an application was submitted for summoning the relevant record with regard to (2 of 4) [CW-7063/2019] the work done by the petitioner in the office of the respondent. Counsel submits that part of the record with regard to the working of the petitioner w.e.f. October, 1993 till March, 1994 was submitted, however, the respondent has not disputed the working of the petitioner w.e.f. March, 1993 till September, 1993. Counsel submits that in the cross- examination of the witness of respondent i.e. Dr. Anoop Shrivastav, he has admitted the fact that the record of muster roll and pay vouchers pertaining to March, 1993 till September, 1993 are not available. Counsel submits that adverse inference could have been drawn by the Tribunal against the respondents, but instead of doing so, the claim petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected on a technical count that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that belated dispute was raised by the workman after a grave delay of more than 20 years. Counsel submits that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact on record that he has worked with the respondent-department for more than 240 days and this fact has been appreciated by the Labour Court, while rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the Labour Court has passed a reasoned and cogent order, which requires no interference of this Court. (3 of 4) [CW-7063/2019] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact has not been disputed by the witnesses of the respondent in his cross-examination that the petitioner has worked in the respondent-department w.e.f. 01.03.1993 till 01.04.1994 and the muster roll with regard to working of the petitioner was submitted in part commencing from the month of October, 1993 till March, 1994 and the rest of the record w.e.f. March, 1993 till September, 1993 was not produced on account of its non-availability. The burden was upon the respondents to disprove the fact raised by the petitioner and the respondents have failed to do the same, hence, under these circumstances, adverse inference must have been drawn by the Tribunal against the respondents. Therefore, considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and looking to the above-mentioned facts, the impugned award is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is 'Whether looking to the total length of service of the workman that is w.e.f. 01.03.1993 till 01.04.1994, the workman is entitled to get reinstatement or he is entitled to get lump sum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement ?' 7. It is settled proposition of law that reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. In catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court it has been held that adequate amount of (4 of 4) [CW-7063/2019] compensation can be granted to the workman looking to the total length of service, rendered by him. 8. In the instant case, the workman has worked with the respondent-department for thirteen months i.e. more than one year, thus, he is entitled to get a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (in words Rupees One Lakh only). 9. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (in words Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. In case, the respondent fails to comply with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till its actual payment. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal stands modified. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/33