Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44090 (RAJ)

BISHAN SINGH S/O SHRI RAMJI LAL v. MANAGER, INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

SAW/651/2025 · 2025-10-09

Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:41011-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 651/2025 Bishan Singh S/o Shri Ramji Lal, Resident Of Mohalla Shopura, Ratti Ke Kue Ka Pas, Alwar. ----Appellant Versus Manager, Institute Of Engineering And Technology, M.I.A. Alwar Through Shri Anurag Upadhyaya S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyaya, Administrative Officer. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumer Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 09/10/2025 1. The challenge is to the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge has granted lump sum compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge is too less and the appellant had worked for 11 months and has been waiting for reinstatement for almost 25 years. 3. We have considered the submissions. 4. Taking into consideration that the appellant has only worked for 11 months and the period of 25 years has already passed, even if the wages are considered during the year 1999-2000 to be around Rs.3,500/- per month, then too the amount would not [2025:RJ-JP:41011-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-651/2025] have been somewhere around Rs.40,000/- for 11 months. Considering that there has not been any application moved by the workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reflects that he must have worked somewhere else, we find that the amount paid by way of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- does not seem to be in any manner less and we, therefore, uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is found to be misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/29