HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16161/2017 Hazari S/o Shri Ramji Lal, R/o, Village Kachipura, Post Siloti, Tehsil And Distt. Karauli, Through Mantri Rastri P.w.d. Employees Union, Karauli Raj. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Karauli Distt. Karauli Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, Addl. GC Mr. M.K. Dhakad for Mr. R.A. Katta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 17.08.2017 passed by Labour Court in Case No. LCR 2275/2014 by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workman has been partly allowed and while setting aside his termination order, a direction has been issued to the respondent to pay a lumpsum amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages in the month of January, 1987 and his services were discontinued by the respondents on 31.05.1988 without following the due process of law contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to (2 of 6) [CW-16161/2017] as “the Act of 1947”). Learned counsel submits that, at the same time, services of other similarly situated persons also were terminated by the respondents namely; Nahar Singh and Bhagwan Singh. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court while passing the awards dated 19.02.1997 and 31.12.1997 quashed the termination order of Nahar Singh and Bhagwan Singh with directions to the respondent to reinstate them in service. Learned counsel submits that discrimination has been caused against the petitioner by the Labour Court, by not directing the respondents to reinstate him in service, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the cases of Nahar Singh and Bhagwan Singh the orders were passed in the year 1997. At the relevant time, there was no law for awarding compensation to the workman in lieu of their reinstatement. Learned counsel submits that much water has flown since then and the Hon’ble Apex Court in numerous judgments has held that reinstatement is not a thumb of rule and it is not mandatory to pass order of reinstatement in each and every case where the termination order is found to be illegal. Learned counsel submits that an adequate amount of compensation can be granted to a workman in lieu of his reinstatement and in the instant case looking to the length of service of the petitioner, sufficient amount of compensation has been awarded, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. (3 of 6) [CW-16161/2017] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is true that termination order of the petitioner was passed by the respondents in utter violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 but this Court cannot lost its sight from the fact that reinstatement is not a thumb of rule and order of reinstatement should not be passed in each and every case. 6. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 7. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 8. In Incharge Officer and Ors. Vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 9. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- (4 of 6) [CW-16161/2017] “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.” (5 of 6) [CW-16161/2017] 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be `1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been `2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of`2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.” 11. Looking to the length of service of the petitioner rendered to the respondent with effect from January, 1987 till May, 1988, i.e., more than one year and considering the above facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments (6 of 6) [CW-16161/2017] passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is inadequate and the petitioner is entitled to get a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakh only), in lieu of reinstatement in service. 12. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case, the said amount is not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment. 13. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court dated 17.08.2017 stands modified, in the above terms and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. 14. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/33