[2025:RJ-JP:38013] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5243/2000 State Bank of India, through its Manager, Gopalbari Branch, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jaipur (Deleted) 2. Shri Nand Bihari Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Jaiman, Resident Of C-4, Laxmi Path, Hathroi, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3012/2001 Nand Bihari Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Jaiman, Resident Of C-4, Laxmi Path, Hathroi, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, through its Manager, Branch Gopalbari, Jaipur. 2. Central Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv. with Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/09/2025 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5243/2000:- 1. Feeling aggrieved by award dated 24.08.2000, whereby reference with regard to termination of the services of the workman-Shri Nand Bihari was answered against the petitioner- [2025:RJ-JP:38013] (2 of 4) [CW-5243/2000] employer and after holding the termination of the respondent- workman as illegal, directions for reinstatement alongwith back- wages @ Rs.20/- per day were given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jaipur, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that after completion of more than 240 days in the calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination to the respondent- workman, as compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not made by the petitioner-employer, hence the termination of the respondent-workman has been held to be illegal. Whereas it was not a case of retrenchment, for the reasons that the respondent-workman was appointed for specific period on contract basis and after completion of the term of contract his services were discontinued, hence, the matter was covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, 1947. However, ignoring the specific plea raised by the petitioner-employer, by holding the termination illegal, directions for reinstatement have been given by the learned Tribunal which is based upon perverse and irrational findings, hence the award dated 24.08.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3012/2001:- 3. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the workman in order to challenge the award dated 24.08.2000 to the extent to which after holding the termination of workman against [2025:RJ-JP:38013] (3 of 4) [CW-5243/2000] the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, liberty was granted by the learned Tribunal to the respondent-Bank to take appropriate action after following the provisions of law. 4. As regards, writ petition No.5243/2000 is concerned, after examining the record and hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that although the plea with regard to contractual appointment of respondent- workman was raised by the petitioner-employer, yet no such contract was ever placed on record, hence in absence of any such contract, learned Tribunal has rightly given categorical findings, that it was a case of retrenchment and violation of provisions under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Such finding based on evidence on record cannot be interfered by way of exercising of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner to the extent of holding the termination of the workman as illegal, requires no interference. 5. However, on perusal of the award as well as other material on record, it is reflected that the petitioner was not appointed after following due process of selection and he had also worked hardly for 4 years pursuant to his irregular engagement and his services were terminated way back in the year 1996. Thus, after lapse of around 29 years and in the circumstances, where the appointment of the petitioner was not regular, it was not proper for the Tribunal to award benefit of reinstatement with backwages and instead of granting such benefit compensation could have been awarded by the learned Tribunal [2025:RJ-JP:38013] (4 of 4) [CW-5243/2000] 6. Recently in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr. in SLP (Civil) No.001198/2025 decided on 29.01.2025 has provided guidelines for awarding compensation in such cases and it has been directed that Rs.1.5 lacs would be just and fair compensation for service of one year. In the instant case, respondent-workman had worked for around 4 years, therefore, in the light of guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), it would be just and proper to dispose of the writ petition by modifying the award dated 24.08.2000 in the manner that instead of relief of reinstatement with backwages, the respondent- workman would be entitled for compensation of Rs.6 lacs which shall be paid by the petitioner-employer to the respondent- workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 7. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA/Jatin/1-2