[2025:RJ-JP:33187] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR (1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4306/2000 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Asstt. Engineer, Beselpur Pariyojana Sinchai Uphkand-I, Rajmahan, Devli, District Tonk. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Judge Labour Court-II, Jaipur. 2. Mahesh Kumar Tailor R/o Niwaria, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk. ----Respondents Connected with (2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5618/2006 Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division 1st, Division 1st. Rajmahal Deoli, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. 2. Mahesh Kumar S/o. Shri Ramswaroop Tailor, R/o Mukam Post Niwaria, District Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma Additional Government Counsel. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Suresh Kashyap Advocate with Ms. Savita Choudhary Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON :: 20.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 26.08.2025 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4306/2000: 1. Petitioners have challenged legality, validity and propriety of award dated 13.12.1999 passed by Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Labour Court’) in LCR [2025:RJ-JP:33187] (2 of 5) [CW-4306/2000] No. 1335/1998, whereby, while answering reference in favour of Respondent No. 2-workman and declaring termination of his services as invalid, directions have been issued to reinstate him by maintaining continuity in service in. 2. Although, it has been submitted by learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the award passed by the Labour Court is against the facts of the case and material on record as also the law prevailing at the relevant time and ignoring the fact that Respondent No. 2-workman never completed 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding one year from the date of his termination and such factual finding is perverse, however, after arguing for sometime, learned Additional Government Counsel confined his arguments to the point of relief granted by the Labour Court. 3. It has been submitted that admittedly, Respondent No. 2-workman was initially engaged on daily wages basis as Beldar on 01.02.1987. No process for appointment of Respondent No. 2- workman was followed and his appointment was admittedly irregular. Responded No. 2-workman was not holding any post as per rules and worked hardly for 2 years and 3 months prior to his termination. Hence, under the circumstances, granting relief of reinstatement to Respondent No. 2-workman is totally unjustified on the part of the Labour Court and even though his termination has been held to be in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, then also, instead of directing reinstatement, Respondent No. 2 could have been compensated by way of awarding him adequate amount as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. [2025:RJ-JP:33187] (3 of 5) [CW-4306/2000] 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that it is settled preposition of law that when termination has been held illegal, then it's natural consequence would be reinstatement along with all consequential benefits. As such no mistake has been committed by the Labour Court in grating benefit of reinstatement along with continuity in service to the Respondent No. 2. 5. I have heard submissions of landed Counsel for the parties and examined the record. 6. It is undisputed fact that Respondent No. 2 was not a regular appointee and he was engaged only on daily wages basis. Therefore, it could be said that engagement of Respondent No. 2- workman was a back door entry and he was not holding any post in accordance with any statuary rules. Therefore, under these circumstances, granting benefit of reinstatement, that too, in the circumstances where Respondent No. 2-workman had worked only for a period around 2 years and 3 months and his services were terminated on 31.05.1989, i.e., 36 years back, it would not be justified to maintain the award of reinstatement and there appears to be strength in the plea raised by learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners that even in the circumstances where the termination has been found to be illegal, then also, instead of granting benefit of reinstatement, the Labour Court ought to have directed for payment of lump-sum compensation to Respondent No. 2-workman. 7. In the case of Executive Engineer & Another Vs. Shri Ram Ji Lal (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3369/2017 decided on 27.02.2025), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after [2025:RJ-JP:33187] (4 of 5) [CW-4306/2000] examining the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 and BSNL Vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 as also decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs. Sharfuddin (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019), has directed for payment of lump-sum compensation in the tune of Rs. 3 lacs. 8. In the light of above as also in view of decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer & Another Vs. Shri Ram Ji Lal (supra), wherein, after considering the working of workman therein for five years prior to his termination, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed to grant lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to the workman therein, it would be in the interest of justice to modify the impugned award dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Labour Court in the manner that instead of reinstatement of Respondent No.2-workman and other ancillary relief, Respondent No. 2-workman shall be entitled for lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3 lacks, which shall be paid by the petitioners to Respondent No. 2-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which such amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till actual payment of the amount. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5618/2006: 9. This writ petition has arisen out of order dated 24.09.2004 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Labour Court’), whereby application under [2025:RJ-JP:33187] (5 of 5) [CW-4306/2000] Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1947’) has been allowed. 10. Computation of wages by the Labour Court has been done consequent upon award dated 13.12.1999 (wrongly mentioned as award dated 14.12.1999) passed in LCR No. 1335/1998. 11. Aforementioned award dated 13.12.1999 passed in LCR No. 1335/1998 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4306/2000. Since, the award itself has been modified by this Court in the above writ petition and instead of relief of reinstatement along with other consequential benefits, direction for granting lump-sum compensation has been given by modifying the award, hence, in the light of order passed in above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4306/2000, on account of modification of award, impugned order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 cannot survive and is, hereby, quashed and set aside accordingly. 12. Writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 14. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record on connected writ petition. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /