[2025:RJ-JP:27693-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 640/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17142/2010 1. Executive Director, Hotel Clarks Amer, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Apurv Kumar S/o Shri Birendra Kumar, Amer, Jaipur. 2. Manager, Hotel Clarks Amer, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Apurv Kumar S/o Shri Birendra Ku, Amer, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Labour Judge No.1, Mini Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Pooran Singh Rajawat S/o Shri Kesar Singh, Through Shri V.K. Mishra, 41, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hanumant Singh Rathore and Mr. Amitava Mozumdar on behalf of Mr. Raaj Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain Mr. Arvind Arora HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI JUDGMENT 24/07/2025 1. The challenge in this Special Appeal (Writ) is the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he has upheld the award passed by the Labour Court, wherein the Labour Court had directed to reinstate the respondent No.2-workman with 20% back wages. The award was passed way back in the year 2010. During pendency of the writ petition, the concerned workman attained the age of superannuation and in order to do [2025:RJ-JP:27693-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-640/2024] the complete justice, the learned Single Judge had passed an order holding the concerned workman to be entitled to payment of actual wages for the period after the date of award till the date of superannuation and of course to receive 20% of the back wages for the earlier period that is before the date of award interest at the rate of 6% of the arrears have also been imposed. 2. We do not find any reason to differ from the well examined facts by the learned Single Judge and no such argument cannot be accepted that back wages ought not to be paid for the period from the date of award to the date of superannuation. 3. We also do not find any reasons to reduce the said back wages, as after 2010, it was the duty of the appellants to either reinstate the respondent No.2-workman or to allow him not to work and receive salary, if ultimately the award is upheld. Thus, it is at their own risk that the appellants have filed the writ petition. The workman cannot be made put to loss on account of the same. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/GAURAV/20