[2025:RJ-JP:3580] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11365/2012 1. Manager, RIICO Ltd, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 2. Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd, Brij Industrial Area, Bharatpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Brijendra Singh S/o Shri Zram Singh, By Caste Gadariya, Village And Post Malah, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 2. Labour Court, Bharatpur Through Presiding Officer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ankit Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/01/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made against the impugned order dated 20.03.2012 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR Case No.64/1997. 2. By passing the impugned award, the Labour Court has granted a lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.1,02,000/- to the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) in lieu of reinstatement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the workman filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court against the order dated 01.09.1995, by which services of the workman were terminated. Learned counsel submits that the workman has failed to prove the fact that he worked with the [2025:RJ-JP:3580] (2 of 3) [CW-11365/2012] petitioner-department w.e.f. 01.06.1993 till 31.08.1995, and no documentary evidence, in this regard, was produced, even then the Labour Court has seriously erred in holding that workman has worked in the Department for more than 240 days, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that certain documents exhibited as M-1 to M-26 were submitted on record before the Labour Court, which indicates that the workman has worked with the petitioner-department on part-time basis but in Exhibit 21 it has not been mentioned that the workman has worked part-time for two hours on daily basis, instead he has worked for full day. 6. On the basis of the evidence led by both sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman had worked with the petitioner-department for more than 240 days prior to 01.09.1995, hence under these circumstances, the finding of fact was recorded in favour of the workman. The fact that workman has reached the age of 52-53 years and to reinstate him in service is not possible and that his services were terminated 17 years back and after considering the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- was awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement by the Labour Court. Hence, the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, which requires any interference of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as stay application stand dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:3580] (3 of 3) [CW-11365/2012] 8. Since the workman has remained unrepresented before this Court inspite of service, hence he might not be aware about passing of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order on the residential address of the workman mentioned in the memo of writ petition as well as in the appeal for his intimation/information. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/21