[2025:RJ-JP:3566] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2159/2017 1. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Jhun- jhunu. 2. Regional Forest Officer, Social Forester, Udaipurvati, Dis- trict Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus Sumer Singh S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Through Advocate V. K. Mishra, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, 411, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/01/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the im- pugned award order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur in LCR No. 23/2000 by which the Labour Court has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’) and quashed and set aside the termination order dated 01.01.1989 and directed the petition- ers to reinstate the workman back in service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman filed a claim petition before the Labour Court with the averment that he was engaged on the post of Cattle Guard on 01.06.1986 and his services were terminated on 01.01.1989. Counsel submits that the petitioner was never engaged on daily wage basis and [2025:RJ-JP:3566] (2 of 3) [CW-2159/2017] there was no violation of any provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in passing the order impugned and the dispute was raised by the workman after a delay but without considering these factual aspects of the matter, the impugned award has been passed which requires interference of this Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman op- posed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners- depart- ment and submitted that workman has established this fact on record of the Labour Court that he worked with the petitioners-de- partment for more than two and half years with effect from 01.06.1986 till 01.01.1989. Counsel submits that there was viola- tion of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 25F & G of the Industrial Disputes Act, hence under these circumstances the Labour Court has quashed the termination order of the work- man and rightly directed the petitioners-department to reinstate him back in service. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and pe- rused the material available on the record. 5. During the course of arguments, by agreement between both the parties and looking to the age of the workman i.e. 54 years now instant petition be disposed of by giving adequate amount of compensation to the workman. 6. Considering the above alternative submissions made by the counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the workman has worked with the petitioners-department for a period of two and a half years, he is entitled to get lumpsum amount of com- pensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. [2025:RJ-JP:3566] (3 of 3) [CW-2159/2017] 7. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of and the impugned award stands modified. The petitioners is di- rected to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that in case, the petitioners-department fails to make compliance of this order within the above stipulated time, the respondent- workman would be entitled to get interest @ 6% from the date of passing of the order till its actual payment. 9. The stay application and all pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/30