[2025:RJ-JP:37600] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12614/2025 Radheyshyam Son Of Shri Mangilal, R/o- Village Barana District Baran, Rajasthan, Through Legal Labour Advisor, Shri Baldev Singh, Advocate, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh Didwana, Kota ----Petitioner Versus 1. Social Welfare Officer, Social Welfare Department, Old Civil Lines, Baran. 2. Superintendent, Hostel Mess Samiti, Government Hostel Social Welfare Department, Barana, District Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Sharma for Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Udawat with Mr. Prateek Saxena & Ms. Anjali Ranga for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 16/09/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota (for brevity, ‘learned Labour Court’) in LCR No. 08/2007 (CIS 968/2014) (CNR RJKT 60001112007) whereby, while answering the reference in favour of the petitioner- workman (for brevity, ‘the workman’), he has been held entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- only. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the workman is that since, he had worked from 26.11.1997 to 01.06.2000, i.e., for a period two and a half year, in view of a [2025:RJ-JP:37600] (2 of 3) [CW-12614/2025] recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 29.01.2025 passed in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. and Anr.: Civil Appeal No(s). 001198/2025 and other connected matters, he is entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the award impugned dated 29.11.2024 be modified in terms thereof. Although, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer; but, could not dispute that in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the workman is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year. Heard. Considered. In the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. On 06.09.2024, this Court had issued notice in the matters limited to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court as it agreed with the observation of the High Court that in every case where termination is found to be illegal, the grant of reinstatement cannot be applied mechanically. Where such a termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect such as in violation of Section 25F of ID Act, this Court has consistently taken a view that in lieu of reinstatement the grant of monetary compensation shall meet the ends of justice. 8. However, we do not find the grant of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation by the High Court to be adequate and just in the facts and circumstances of the present matters. The amount of sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is too nominal and unjust considering that the appellants were working as Operator TA Grade with the respondent. Additionally, the High Court while passing the impugned order has also lost sight of the fact that each of the appellant had served for a varying duration of time and a blanket/uniform [2025:RJ-JP:37600] (3 of 3) [CW-12614/2025] grant of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation in differing cases shall not meet the ends of justice and will be in contravention with the principle of proportionality. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, we deem it fit to enhance the compensation granted to the appellants by the High Court. We hold that the appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year for the period they have worked and in case, they have worked for a part of the year, then the amount of compensation is to be calculated at the same rate to be applied on a pro- rata basis.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law and looking to the period for which the workman has worked with the respondents, i.e., almost two and a half year, he is found entitled for a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 3,75,000/-. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The award dated 29.11.2024 is modified in terms that the workman would be entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-. Rest of the award is maintained. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/42