[2026:RJ-JP:1132] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2014/2018 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, We Depot, Alwar Rajasthan Through Its Officer Incharge. ----Petitioner Versus Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Resident Of Village Bhusawar, Tehsil Weir, District Alwar, Presently Residing In Kumher Gate, Opposite Picture Palace, Mali Mohalla, Bharatpur Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19222/2017 Jagdish Prasad, Son Of Sohan Lal, aged about 53 years, Resident Of Village Bhusawar, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur At Present Resident Of Kumher Gate, Behind Picture Palace, Mali Mohalla, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar, V-Depot, Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur in SBCWP No. 2014/2018 Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj in SBCWP No.19222/2017 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj in SBCWP No. 2014/2018 Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar in SBCWP No.19222/2017 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/01/2026 1. Arising out of award dated 28.08.2017 in LCR No. 663/2006 (Old No. 25/1999), passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour [2026:RJ-JP:1132] (2 of 7) [CW-2014/2018] Court, Alwar, in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1947’), these writ petitions were filed firstly by the RSRTC and other by the workman Jagdish Prasad. 2. By this order, we are disposing of both the writ petitions. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the workman was appointed on the post of conductor on daily wage basis vide order dated 28.05.1985 and after completion of 180 days, he was appointed on probation for a period of one year vide order dated 31.03.1986. When the work of workman Jagdish Prasad was not found satisfactory, his probation period was extended for a period of six months and one penalty was imposed vide order dated 18.06.1986. After inspection on 17.08.1986, it was found that fourteen and half passengers were traveling without tickets, when the workman Jagdish Prasad was discharging his duty as Conductor then his services were terminated on 20.08.1986 and the workman has invoked provision of the Act of 1947 and a reference was made on 03.12.1998 by the Labour Department. 4. After filing of the statement of claim by workman and reply by the employer (RSRTC), statements of AW1 Jagdish Prasad (workman) and NAW1 Sharifan Meena (employer) were recorded. The workman has exhibited three documents whereas employer has exhibited eight documents. Vide order dated 28.08.2017, the Tribunal has found that the termination order dated 20.08.1986 was illegal and contrary to provisions of law, but instead of reinstatement, the Tribunal has directed and awarded compensation of ₹1,00,000/- to the workman. [2026:RJ-JP:1132] (3 of 7) [CW-2014/2018] 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of RSRTC (employer) has submitted that the workman was on probation and his services can be terminated if his performance in probation is not as satisfactory. She further submits that the termination order was simplicitor and not a stigmatic order and it does not warrant an enquiry. She also submits that the Industrial Tribunal has awarded compensation in exorbitant manner and same is contrary to settled norms. She further submits that the workman has raised the dispute after eleven years and the Tribunal has not considered this fact but the workman has filed a writ petition for reinstatement which is not maintainable as the workman has rendered less than two years’ of service in all manner. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of workman and he submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and he has completed 240 days. He also submits that the services of the workman were terminated only on ground that the workman has committed a misconduct. He further submits that a civil suit is filed by the workman, and delay is explained by him before the Tribunal. He also referred the award and submitted that when the termination is adjudged as illegal and arbitrary, the natural consequence is reinstatement in service. He further submits that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of RSRTC in connected matter has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the workman and submitted that the workman is not entitled for any relief of reinstatement. [2026:RJ-JP:1132] (4 of 7) [CW-2014/2018] 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. A perusal of award dated 28.08.2017 indicate that when a reference is made then two questions were referred and they are as under:- I. Whether is it appropriate to raise issue dispute after 11 years? II. If yes, whether termination by employer on 20.08.1986 is proper and legal, and if no, what relief the workman is entitled? 10. The Tribunal has referred order dated 20.08.1986 (Ex.M8) and observed that the services were terminated as work and performance of workman was not found satisfactory. A cheque of ₹1237.50/- was enclosed and the Tribunal has drawn a conclusion that it was a retrenchment. The Tribunal has also referred deposition of NAW-1 Sharifan Meena, wherein he admitted that due to indiscipline and causing loss to Corporation, the services of workman (Jagdish Prasad) was terminated. The Tribunal has also considered that when the passengers without ticket were found, then no inquiry was conducted whereas the standing orders issued by the Corporation provides that an enquiry is required to be conducted. 11. The evidence on record were considered by the Tribunal in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, and the Tribunal has drawn a conclusion that a probationer is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily and certainly not in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. 12. Having taken note of the material placed before the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal is a final authority as regard to fact [2026:RJ-JP:1132] (5 of 7) [CW-2014/2018] finding inquiry is concerned, as no appeal is prescribed from the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal or by Labour Court. 13. The invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only on legal grounds and this Court cannot enter into a factual controversy. The judgment/award itself indicate that on basis of evidence, both documentary and oral, the Tribunal has drawn a conclusion that the termination was stigmatic and the services were terminated without giving opportunity of hearing and defend to workman, there is no legal ground for interference in the conclusion about impugned termination order. 14. The second ground raised before us is - Whether delay frustrate the case of workman? 15. The workman has filed a civil suit on 18.08.1986 soon after the remark dated 17.08.1986 on apprehension but afterward the suit was withdrawn and a dispute was raised before the Labour Authority and ultimately, a reference was made. The Tribunal has found that the dispute was raised just after three years and same is not a substantial delay on this ground the workman is not entitled to reinstate in service. 16. We agree with the proposition as observed by the Tribunal in para No.20, that there was delay of three years and not 11 years. The annexure-1 (A copy of plaint) filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19222/2017, indicate the workman has filed a civil suit, before raising labour dispute. Thus, the case of workman is not frustrated on ground of delay as perusing a remedy before Civil Court is also not barred, considering the judgment in case of RSRTC Vs. Balmukund Bairwa : (2009) 4 SCC 299. [2026:RJ-JP:1132] (6 of 7) [CW-2014/2018] 17. Considering totality of facts and circumstances, it is apparent on record that the workman has rendered services from 28.05.1985 to 20.08.1986, but the dispute is raised after some delay and there is no explanation of delay of three years. Thus, agreeing with the reasons as assigned by the Tribunal, the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service. 18. The only issue before us is award of compensation. It is apparent on record that the workman has rendered service of more than one year but less than one year and three months. 19. In case of Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishan Pal Singh : 2021 SCC OnLine Sc 751, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where termination/dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under law. It was held that the ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation and directed payment of lump sum compensation of ₹15,00,000/- to workman within a period of eight weeks failing which the workman is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum, till payment. 20. In case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr. : Civil Appeal No. …… of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Civil) No.20902/2024) and other connected matters, Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed payment of compensation at the rate of ₹1,50,000/- per year for the period he has worked. 21. Considering overall facts and circumstances, it is appropriate to enhance compensation from ₹1,00,000/- to ₹1,50,000/- and it will meet the ends of justice. [2026:RJ-JP:1132] (7 of 7) [CW-2014/2018] 22. In view of discussion made hereinabove, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2014/2018 filed by RSRTC is hereby dismissed but S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19222/2017 is partly allowed and the award dated 28.08.2017 is modified to the extent that the workman Jagdish Prasad is entitled for a compensation of ₹1,50,000/- instead of ₹1,00,000/- as determined by the Industrial Tribunal. The workman is also entitled for interest as directed by the Tribunal. The workman is not entitled for any order of reinstatement. 23. With the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand disposed of with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/39 and 40