[2025:RJ-JP:5420] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13501/2010 Vijendra Mali Son Of Shri Hajari Lal, Village Khajurwada, Post Karsoli, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur Rajasthan. 2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Hindaun City, District Karauli Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kapil Prakash Sharma, AAG with Mr.Ashutosh Udawat Mr.Prateek Saxena Mr.Vijay Pathak JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No. 408/2005, by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as, "the workman") has been allowed and his termination order has been quashed and set aside and in spite of passing the order of reinstatement, a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition. 3. Contents of the petition indicate that he was engaged on the post of Pump Driver (Handpump Mistri) on daily wages by [2025:RJ-JP:5420] (2 of 6) [CW-13501/2010] the respondents on 22.08.1988 and he continued to work till 15.08.1990 and on 16.08.1990, his services were orally terminated, and neither any notice nor any payment of compensation was made to him. Such act of the respondents has resulted in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (for short, "the Act of 1947"). The aforesaid action of the respondents was assailed by the workman before the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute, the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner was allowed with the finding of the fact that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 4. It is settled law, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, and if he proves it before the Court by leading evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 5. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 6. In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh reported in (2012)1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of [2025:RJ-JP:5420] (3 of 6) [CW-13501/2010] 25F of the Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 7. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 8. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the [2025:RJ-JP:5420] (4 of 6) [CW-13501/2010] management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.” 9. 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:5420] (5 of 6) [CW-13501/2010] 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.” 10. Looking to the length of service of the workman rendered in the Office of respondents with effect from 22.08.1988 till 15.08.1990, i.e., approximately two years and considering the above fact that the dispute was raised after a considerable time, and an order of reinstatement was not passed and in place thereof a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- has been granted and in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakhs only), as the workman has worked with the respondents for more than a period of two years, in lieu of his reinstatement in service. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakhs only) to the petitioner-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, after adjusting the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court (i.e. Rs.20,000/- to the workman). In case, the enhanced amount is not paid to the petitioner within the above stipulated time i.e. three months, then the petitioner-workman would be entitled to [2025:RJ-JP:5420] (6 of 6) [CW-13501/2010] get interest @6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment. 12. Since the petitioner has remained unrepresented before this Court, he is not aware about passing of this order, Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the residential address of the petitioner mentioned in the memo of cause title for intimation/ information. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.09.2009 passed by the Tribunal stands modified, in the above terms and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. 14. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /69