HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13481/2018 Kajod S/o Shri Ram Narain, Ex. Employee Under Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Samajik Vaniki, Forest Department, Alwar. Resident Of Village Lakas, Post Syaluta, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus The Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Samajik Vaniki, Forest Department, Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/03/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned award dated 25.04.2017 passed by Industrial Disputes- cum- Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Case No. LCR 379/2006 by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner-workman has been partly allowed whereby his termination order dated 01.01.1988 has been held to be invalid and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded in lieu of his reinstatement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Daily Wager by the respondents in the month of February, 1982 and he continued to work on the said post till 31.12.1987, but all of sudden his services were terminated on 01.01.1988 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation to him. Learned counsel submits that (2 of 4) [CW-13481/2018] the aforesaid action of the respondents was in utter violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). Learned counsel submits that looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than five years, the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is inadequate, which needs suitable enhancement by this Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the age of the petitioner was 59 years, hence under this circumstance his reinstatement was not possible. Learned counsel submits that there was delay of 10 years in raising the industrial dispute and looking to the term of service rendered by him, adequate amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, which requires no interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 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 petitioner was engaged as Daily Wager in the month of February, 1982 and he worked with the respondents till 31.12.1987. This fact is not in dispute that his services were terminated by the respondent on 01.01.1988. The petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by way of filing statutory claim stating therein that the aforesaid action of the respondents was in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H (3 of 4) [CW-13481/2018] of the Act of 1947 as no notice or no compensation was paid to him. 6. Considering the arguments furnished by both the sides, the Tribunal came to a definite conclusion that there was violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947 except Section 25-H of the Act of 1947 and looking to the fact that the services rendered by the petitioner i.e. five years and ten months, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the petitioner as compensation in lieu of his reinstatement. 7. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is that ‘Whether looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than five years, the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is adequate or not?’ 8. In a similar matter, 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 (4 of 4) [CW-13481/2018] 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.” 9. Considering the above proposition of law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests (supra), the petitioner-workman is entitled to get lumpsum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. Accordingly, the respondent-employer is directed to pay the enhanced amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, which includes the amount of Rs.50,000/- as directed by the Tribunal, if not already paid. 10. It is made clear that, in case, the employer fails to make the payment of enhanced amount of compensation to the workman within the stipulated time, the workman would be entitled to get interest @6% p.a. from the date of passing of the award till its actual payment. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petiton stands disposed of. The impugned order dated 25.04.2017 stands modified. 12. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/91