[2026:RJ-JP:8545-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 814/2025 Yogendra Kumar Son Of Shri Damodar Lal Gupta, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Shahpura, At Present C/o Shri G.p. Kaushik, 43/28/9, Chankya Lane, Near Swaran Path Chauraha, Mansarover, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Virat Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. The Sarpanch Prashasak, Gram Panchyat Rampura, Panchayat Samiti, Virat Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mirza Farooq Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Ms. Divya Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 24/02/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby learned Single Judge has modified the award. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the workman is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of reinstatement. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:8545-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-814/2025] 5. Admittedly, the appellant has worked with the respondent- Department for a period of one year, therefore, the appellant is entitled for lump-sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2025 Supreme (online) (SC) 782, wherein, it was held as under:- “1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeals have been preferred by ten appellants separately, and thereafter tagged to- gether, against the impugned common judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in several connected Writ Peti- tions, whereby the order granting reinstatement of workmen was quashed and instead compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) was provided in lieu of reinstatement. The said Writ Pe- titions before the High Court were preferred by the respondent-company challenging the award(s) of the Labour Court granting similar relief of rein- statement to the appellants herein. 3. Brief facts of the matters are that the appellants were appointed on the sanctioned post of Operator TA Grade-2 in Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. at different points of time pursuant to a contractual agreement obligat- ing the appellants to serve for a period of three months. Upon successful completion of the afore- said term, the appellants were directed to continue as a regular employee functioning as Operator TA Grade. However, in 2011, the respondent exe- cuted an agreement with the appellants so as to deprive them of the service benefits and regular- ization by reflecting an artificial break or interval in the service period. Subsequently, the appellants [2026:RJ-JP:8545-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-814/2025] after rendering services for different periods of time since their initial date of appointment, were terminated from their services. Such illegal termi- nation from service was challenged by the appel- lants by way of separate petitions and Labour Commissioner referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Sagar, Mad- hya Pradesh under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The Labour Court, vide different orders, granted similar relief to the appellants whose plight was based on similar factual matrix by holding their termination to be illegal as it was in contravention with Section 25F of the ID Act. It directed the re- spondent to reinstate the workmen-appellants and also awarded backwages to the appellants depend- ing on the specific facts of each case. 5. Aggrieved by the award(s) of the Labour Court, the respondent preferred several Writ Petitions be- fore the High Court challenging each of these awards in which the impugned common order was passed. The counsel for the respondent herein had confined his arguments before the High Court to the effect that even if the Labour Court had con- cluded that termination of service was bad on ac- count of non-compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act, yet the direction to the respondent should have been limited to payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The High Court agreed with such contention based on its reliance on several judgments of this Court on the subject matter. Ac- cordingly, the High Court affirmed the finding with regard to setting aside of termination but so far as the order of reinstatement of workmen was con- cerned, the same was quashed and instead the ap- pellants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) payable to each of them within a period of two months. [2026:RJ-JP:8545-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-814/2025] 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appel- lants are before us. 7. On 06.09.2024, this Court had issued notice in the matters limited to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court as it agreed with the observation of the High Court that in every case where termination is found to be ille- gal, the grant of reinstatement cannot be applied mechanically. Where such a termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect such as in vi- olation of Section 25F of ID Act, this Court has consistently taken a view that in lieu of reinstate- ment the grant of monetary compensation shall meet the ends of justice. 8. However, we do not find the grant of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as com- pensation by the High Court to be adequate and just in the facts and circumstances of the present matters. The amount of sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Ru- pees Fifty thousand only) is too nominal and un- just considering that the appellants were working as Operator TA Grade with the respondent. Addi- tionally, the High Court while passing the im- pugned order has also lost sight of the fact that each of the appellant had served for a varying du- ration of time and a blanket/uniform grant of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compen- sation in differing cases shall not meet the ends of justice and will be in contravention with the princi- ple of proportionality. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, we deem it fit to enhance the compensa- tion granted to the appellants by the High Court. We hold that the appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year for the period they have worked and in case, they have worked for a part of the year, then the amount of compensation is to be calculated at the same rate to be applied on a pro- [2026:RJ-JP:8545-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-814/2025] rata basis. The following table represents the pe- riod of service rendered by each of the appellant and accordingly, the amount of compensation each of them shall be entitled to in terms of the above directions: Diary No. Appellant’s Name Month of Joining Month of commennce ment of regular service Month o termination Period of service Amount off compensatio n 34425/24 Amit Kumar Dubey May, 2008 August, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 2 months Rs. 4,75,000 34400/24 Anil Kumar Choudhary June, 2009 November, 20009 March, 2011 1 year 10 months Rs. 2,75,000 34401/24 Prakash Premi December, 2006 March, 2007 June, 2011 4 years 7 months Rs. 6,87,500 34420/24 Balram Ahirwar July, 2008 October, 2008 June, 2011 3 years Rs. 4,50,000 34720/2024 Amar Singh Thakur July, 2008 October, 2008 June, 2011 3 years Rs. 4,50,000 24986/2024 Devendra Kumar Shukla January, 2004 April, 2004 July, 2011 7 years 7 months Rs. 11,37,500 34404/2024 Abhishek Chouksey April, 2008 July, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 3 months Rs. 4,87,500 34419/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra March, 2008 May, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 4 months Rs. 5,00,000 34412/2024 Deepchandr a Rohit April, 2008 July, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 3 months Rs. 4,87,500 34721/2024 Nilesh Kumar February, 2008 April, 208 June, 2011 3 years 5 months Rs. 5,12,500 10. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensation as di- rected above which is to be paid within three months from today. Further, any payment made to the appellant(s) under Section 17B of the ID Act shall be set off while calculating the final amount to be paid. Additionally, the respondent shall be at liberty to consider the re-engagement of the ap- pellant(s) in view of the provisions contained in Section 25H of the ID Act. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dis- posed of.” [2026:RJ-JP:8545-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-814/2025] 6. Since, the workman has worked with the respondent- Department for a period of one year, therefore we deem it just and proper to grant lump-sum amount to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement to the appellant. 7. In that view of the matter, the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 02.07.2012 and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2023 is modified accordingly and the respondents are directed to pay the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, to the appellant after adjusting the amount already paid to him within two months from today. 8. The present appeal in the above terms stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /68