[2025:RJ-JP:10055] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1898/2025 1. Punjab National Bank, In Front Of Swagat Bhawan, U.i.t. Campus Branch, U.i.t. Campus, Bharatpur, Through Manager. 2. Punjab National Bank, Mandal Office, Super Market, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001, Through Regional Manager. 3. Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office 2, P.n.b. House, First Floor, Tonk Road, Nehru Place, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Through Zonal Officer / Manager. 4. Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, Through Managing Director. ----Petitioners Versus Shri Kripal Singh Son Of Shri Krishna, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Village Madarpur, Post Barakhur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anamika Arora JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT Case No.05/2020 by which a statement of claim submitted by the respondent-workman has been allowed and his termination order dated 11.11.2019 has been held to be invalid in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) and instead of passing the order of [2025:RJ-JP:10055] (2 of 4) [CW-1898/2025] reinstatement, a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been awarded. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent- workman raised an industrial dispute by way of filing an application under Section 2-A of the Act of 1947 before the Tribunal stating therein that he was appointed as Daily Wager in the month of August, 2007 and he continued to work with the petitioners till 10.11.2019 and his services were terminated orally vide order dated 11.11.2019 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-workman was not a regular employee but he was a daily wager and this fact has been appreciated and recorded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award even then a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been awarded to the respondent-workman, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel submits that the workman has failed to establish on the record that he has worked with the petitioner-Bank for more than 240 days in a calendar year, even then the impugned award has been passed directing the petitioners to pay lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the impugned award is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & others Versus State of Bihar & Others reported in AIR 1997 SC 3657 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court; [2025:RJ-JP:10055] (3 of 4) [CW-1898/2025] (2) Nirmala Joshi Versus Labour Court, Delhi reported in 1966 0 Supreme (Del) 40 passed by the Delhi High Court; and (3) Guru Jambeshwar University, Hisar Versus Shival Kumar & Others reported in 2016 1 LLJ 320 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the respondent-workman was engaged as Daily Wager by the petitioner-Bank in the month of August, 2007 and his services were taken continuously till 10.11.2019 and his services were terminated orally vide order dated 11.11.2019. The aforesaid claim submitted by the workman was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the workman was not made through the selection process and no appointment was given to him. Neither any appointment was given nor his services were terminated. His entry in the Bank was backdoor entry and the workman has not worked with the petitioner-Bank for more than 240 days in a calendar year, hence the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 are not applicable. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same are distinguishable. 6. After considering the documents/evidence available on the record and the arguments furnished by both the parties, the Tribunal has taken into account the documents i.e. Payment Vouchers, Peon Book etc. and recorded a finding of fact that the workman has worked with the petitioner-Bank with effect from [2025:RJ-JP:10055] (4 of 4) [CW-1898/2025] 2009 till 10.11.2019 and it was found that services of the workman were terminated without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation and the same has resulted in violation of the mandate contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and, accordingly, termination order of the workman dated 11.11.2019 was found to be void and invalid and, accordingly, the same was set aside. 7. Looking to the fact that the reinstatement is not a thumb rule in every matter, so looking to the length of service of the respondent-workman i.e. 10 years, a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- has been awarded in his favour. The impugned award has been passed by passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 after perusing the evidence/documents available on the record. 8. This Court finds no error in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, which requires any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/17