[2025:RJ-JP:10211] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26020/2018 1. Nideshak (Horticulture), Krishi Vibhag, Rajasthan Sarkar, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur. 2. Shayak Phal Vikas Adhikari, Sarkari Krishi Durgapura Krishi Farm Ke Paas, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Soni wife of Shri Sanwat Ram (Sine Dided), through legal hires 2. Sawantram Pati Smt. Soni, Resident 244, Meenon Ka Mohalla, Katta Gali, Talk Road, Durgapura 3. Santasaran S/o Smt. Soni, Resident 244, Meenon Ka Mohalla, Katta Gali, Talk Road, Durgapura 4. Godi Devi D/o Smt. Soni, Resident 244, Meenon Ka Mohalla, Katta Gali, Talk Road, Durgapura 5. Manfuli Putri Smt. Soni, Resident 244, Meenon Ka Mohalla, Katta Gali, Talk Road, Durgapura 6. Santosh Devi D/o Smt. Soni, Resident 244, Meenon Ka Mohalla, Katta Gali, Talk Road, Durgapura ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/03/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to issue the writ of Certiorari, or any other order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quashing and setting aside the award dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure-1). [2025:RJ-JP:10211] (2 of 3) [CW-26020/2018] Any other order/direction/relief which this Hon’ble Court deems proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner along with cost.” 2. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made by the petitioners-employer to the award dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur by which the learned Labour Court has held that the order of termination of the deceased- workman was illegal being contradictory to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) and the petitioner-employer were directed to reinstate him in service with 50% back wages. 3. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the similar petition involving the same issue in Nideshak (Horticulture) vs. Smt. Janki; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25295/2018 has been decided by this Court on 30.03.2022. Counsel submits that the instant petition be also disposed in the light of same direction issued in the case of Smt. Janki (supra). 4. Considering the joint request of the counsel for the parties, the order dated 30.03.2022 is perused and the same is reproduced as under: “I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. The workman in support of her claim petition produced the affidavit and thereafter both parties cross- examined the affidavits and the witnesses. The Labour Court after considering the material available on the record vide judgment dated 09.08.2018 held that the termination of the workman was null and void and the same was in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Since the deceased workman expired during pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, hence her legal representative was taken on record. Since the deceased workman did not survive, so her order of reinstatement could not be passed. Looking to the fact that the deceased workman expired, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay 50% back wages to the legal representative of the deceased workman with effect from 9.10.1986 to 17.11.2009. [2025:RJ-JP:10211] (3 of 3) [CW-26020/2018] There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.” 5. Since controversy involved in both the matters are same and identical and the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the case of Smt. Janki (supra) has already been dismissed, thus, the instant petition also deserves the same treatment. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed in the light of directions in the case of Smt. Janki (supra). 6. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /42