HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18282/2016 1. Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Bisalpur Project, Jaipur 2. Superintending Engineer, Circle Dam, Water Resources, Bisalpur Project, Deoli, Tonk 3. Executive Engineer, Construction Division III, Water Resources, Bisalpur Project, Deoli, Tonk 4. Assistant Engineer, Construction Sub-Division IV Division- III, Bisalpur Project, Deoli, Tonk ----Petitioners Versus Shri Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, R/o Shiv Colony, Malmiki Marg, Kuchalwara Road Ucha, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.K.Sharma-Addl.G.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F.Baig JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur in LCR No. 95/2007 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 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the workman back in service. (2 of 3) [CW-18282/2016] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the workman was engaged on daily wages on 01.03.1988 and his services were terminated on 01.05.1990. Counsel submits that workman has failed to establish this fact on record before the Labour Court that he continuously worked with the petitioners- department for a period of more than 240 days in the last preceding calendar year. Counsel submits that the services of the workman were terminated on 01.05.1990 and he raised the industrial dispute after a delay of sixteen years without giving any justified reasons for such delay, even then the claim petition filed by the workman was allowed and the impugned award has been passed, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners- department and submitted that workman has established this fact on record that he was engaged as a daily wager on 01.03.1988 and he worked with the petitioners-department till 01.05.1990 and his services were terminated in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence under these circumstances the Labour Court has quashed the termination order of the workman and rightly directed the petitioners- department to reinstate him back in service. 4. During the course of arguments, both the parties have agreed that instant petitions be disposed of by giving an adequate amount of compensation to the workman, looking to the fact that (3 of 3) [CW-18282/2016] he worked with the department for two years and industrial disputes was raised after a delay of 16 years. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case and looking to the joint request made by counsel for the parties and also looking to the fact that workman has worked with the department for a period of two years and the industrial disputes has been raised after a delay of sixteen years, the workman is entitled to get lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned award stands modified. The petitioners are directed 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 fail 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 Ashu/29