[2025:RJ-JP:50580] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1276/2019 Mukuram Husain S/o Shri Anwar Husain, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Plot No. 122, Hameed Nagar, Panch Batti, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personal, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jal Bhawan, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (City Circle), Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. 4. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, City Division-I, Panipech, Jaipur. 5. Assistant Engineer (Production), Sub Division-Iii, Public Health Engineering Department, Amanishah Chowki, Panipech, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma with Mr. Kirti Lamba For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Sucha Kaushal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/12/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: a. By an appropriate writ order or direction or in nature thereof, thereby, the writ petition be allowed and respondent no 1, department of personal may kindly be directed to immediately release the prosecution sanction against the [2025:RJ-JP:50580] (2 of 6) [CW-1276/2019] alleged officers who are not making the compliance of award dated 28.03.2017. b In alternate, by an appropriate writ order or direction, the compliance of award dated 28.03.2017 be ensured from the respondents no. 2 to 5. c. order or directions Any other appropriate which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the department to immediately release the prosecution sanction against the officers who are responsible for non-compliance of the award dated 28.03.2017. He further submits that pursuant to the said award, the entire payment has been made and the order to this effect has been placed on record. He further submits that, as on date, nothing survives in the writ petition, as the terms of the award have already been complied with by the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in the year 2005 and the Conciliation Officer referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, which was decided in favour of the petitioner on 28.03.2017; however, the award has not been complied with by the concerned department. He further submits that the petitioner was constrained to file an application under Sections 29 read with Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking compliance of the [2025:RJ-JP:50580] (3 of 6) [CW-1276/2019] award as well as prosecution of the erring officers. He further submits that the Labour Commissioner has referred the matter to the Department of Personnel (DOP) for grant of prosecution sanction, but the same was deliberately delayed and avoided. He placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Sabeer Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 WLN 562 (DB), and submitted that the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, while considering an identical situation, observed that the workman is entitled to compensation by awarding interest on the amount in question. 4. He further placed reliance upon the order dated 12.09.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12627/2017, Prabhu Narayan Parikh v. State of Rajasthan, and submitted that there was a deliberate delay in making payment and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest to compensate adequately in a reasonable manner, which is also provided under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties introduced the material placed on record. 6. An award dated 28.03.2017 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in I.T.R. No. 15/2006 in favour of the petitioner and, despite issuance of notice by the petitioner to the respondents, the award has not been complied with and the petitioner was compelled to file an application under Sections 29 read with Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [2025:RJ-JP:50580] (4 of 6) [CW-1276/2019] 7. The Labour Department, after considering the issue of non- compliance of the award, has requested the Department of Personnel (DOP) to issue prosecution sanction for prosecuting four responsible officers who fall within the category of employer. The material available on record indicates that no decision has been taken by the DOP with regard to grant of prosecution sanction. A meeting was organized by the DOP and the minutes dated 05.09.2019 indicate that the Chief Secretary issued fresh guidelines on 17.09.2018 and directed compliance of the award. 8. The material on record further indicate that an amount of ₹ 11,12,544/- was paid on 27.11.2025, whereas an amount of ₹ 51,6353/- was paid on 01.12.2025 and an amount of ₹25,558/- was paid on 08.12.2025, while the payment of remaining amount of ₹24,236/- is still in process. This clearly indicates that only after a specific order was passed by this Court on 21.11.2025 the respondents initiated the process of payment, which is sufficient to judge the intention of the respondents. As on date, though the amount has been paid, though there is no order with regard to payment of interest. The award dated 28.03.2017 has attained finality and, therefore, the same was required to be complied with within a reasonable time. 9. In the case of Smt. Sabeer Kanwar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the issue of delayed payment, observed that the petitioner therein was driven from pillar to post for redressal of her grievance due to the high-handedness of the respondents and, thus, she was held [2025:RJ-JP:50580] (5 of 6) [CW-1276/2019] entitled to be compensated by awarding interest on the amount in question. The Division Bench awarded interest at the rate of 12% on the due amount for the period of delay along with cost of litigation. 10. Accordingly, the Bench in the case of Prabhu Narayan Pareek (supra) also considered the issue of delay and, after placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Sabeer Kanwar (supra), directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for penalty for breach of settlement or award and further that where the breach is a continuing one, fine can be imposed. In the case of Yugal Sikri v. State of U.P. & Another, SLP (Criminal) No. 4965/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that in order to maintain a complaint under Section 29, specific averments regarding breach of settlement or award are required. Section 29 can be attracted when there is any breach of settlement or award which is binding upon the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. In the present case, the award is binding upon the respondents and has already attained finality, therefore, it was their duty to comply with the terms and conditions of the award. However, they failed to comply with the award within a reasonable time and the petitioner was compelled to approach the Labour Commissioner for execution of the award. When the DOP blocked the proposal of the Labour Department by not issuing prosecution sanction against the erring officials, the petitioner was left with no option except [2025:RJ-JP:50580] (6 of 6) [CW-1276/2019] to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. After the intervention of this Court, the respondents released the payment, which is sufficient to show that the petitioner was again made to move from pillar to post and his grievance was not redressed earlier despite the award. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to compensation and the appropriate compensation would be paid by way of award of interest. In the facts of the present case, interest at the rate of 9% per annum appears to be sufficient and reasonable and the writ petition is liable to be partially allowed. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is partially allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award dated 28.03.2017 till the date, the due amount was released and shall be paid to the petitioner, within six weeks. The petitioner is not entitled to any direction for grant of prosecution sanction. 14. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /130