[2025:RJ-JP:29261] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2097/2001 Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Bundi Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ram Kishan S/o Shri Lalji aged about 57 years, resident of Amarthuna, Tehsil Bundi, Distirct Bundi, Rajasthan. (now deceased). 1/1. Smt. Bhuri Bai W/o Late Shri Ram Kishan, aged about 70 years. ½. Gopal S./o Late Shri Ram Kishan. 1/3. Smt. Bharosi Bai D/o Late Ram Kishan, aged about 35 years. All the above residents of Village Amerthuna, Post Nathwata Ka Guda, Ram Nagar Panchayat, District Bundi, Rajasthan. ¼. Mohan S/o Ram Kishan, aged about 50 years. 1/5. Smt. Heera Bai D/o Late Ram Kishan, aged about 40 years. All the above resident of Naya Gauo, Ramganj Balaji, Devpura Thana, Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondent 2. The Judge, Labour Court, Kota. ...Performa/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Prakash Saini on behalf of Mr. Hitesh Bagri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 31/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging Award dated 29.05.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota Rajasthan, whereby Reference under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been answered in favour of respondent-workman to the extent that his [2025:RJ-JP:29261] (2 of 4) [CW-2097/2001] termination on the Post of Cattle Guard w.e.f. 31.01.1993 has been set-aside and the directions have been given to reinstate him along with the benefits @ 30%. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has committed serious error in treating the services of the petitioner as continuous service whereas, he has not rendered service for more than 240 days in the last preceding calendar year from the date of termination. He would further submit that on account of not completing the service of 240 days, provision of Section 25-F would not be applicable and there was no requirement for giving notice to the petitioner before termination of his service. 3. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if this Court does not entertain the writ petition against the factual finding given by learned Labour Court then also the Court below has committed serious error of jurisdiction by granting relief of reinstatement to an employee who was admittedly a daily wager and never appointed to a substantive post after following the regular recruitment process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also informs that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-workman had already attained the age of 60 years and even otherwise possibility of his reinstatement is not there. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh in D.B Special Appeal (Writ) No. 469/2020 decided on 22.03.2022 where under similar circumstances, while quashing the directions with [2025:RJ-JP:29261] (3 of 4) [CW-2097/2001] regard to reinstatement, the Hon’ble Division Bench, by modifying the Award, has directed to make payment of lump sum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the workman. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that after examining the entire material as well as evidences on record, the learned Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that termination of the petitioner on the Post of Cattle Guard w.e.f. 31.01.1993 was not justified and legal; only therefore, it was quashed. He would further submit that it is a settled proposition of law that as and when termination is quashed, it's natural consequence would be reinstatement along with all consequential benefits. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not a dispute that the petitioner has utterly failed to place any convincing evidence on record to deny the claim of completing 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination, as raised by the respondent-workman and it was also admitted that no notice or pay in lieu of notice whatsoever was given to the respondent-workman while terminating his services w.e.f. 31.01.1993. It is a settled proposition of law that while exercising the jurisdiction of the Constitution of India, factual findings given by the learned Labour Court cannot be interfered with, unless and until the same are proved to be perverse or in defiance of law. 9. We find that the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any case for interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Court below. [2025:RJ-JP:29261] (4 of 4) [CW-2097/2001] 10. As regards, the question of relief, a bare perusal of terms of Reference would make it clear that the reference was in two parts; first, as to whether termination of respondent-workman was legal and justified or not? Second, if not justified, then for what relief the workman was entitled to? 11. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-workman was never employed after following due process of recruitment and he was simply a daily wager employee, hardly worked for a period of three years in entire span. The alleged termination also took place on 31.01.1993, since then, approximately 32 years have expired and in the meanwhile, the respondent-workman has also crossed retirement age of 60 years. 12. Hence, this Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that relief of reinstatement along with consequential benefits granted by the Labour Court was not justified and reasonable. 13. Accordingly, in the light of judgment The State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra (supra), the award dated 29.05.2000 passed by the Learned Labour Court is hereby modified to the extent that instead of benefit of reinstatement along with other benefits, the petitioners shall grant and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lakhs within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/9