[2026:RJ-JP:716] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14296/2013 1. Mahendra S/o Shri Bidariya, age about 45 years, R/o Village Mahua Khera, Tehsil Kherawar, District Agra (UP) 1/1. Smt. Janak Devi W/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 52 years, 1/2. Smt. Anita D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 30 years, 1/3. Ram Kumar S/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 29 years, 1/4. Rani D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 27 years, 1/5. Puja D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 24 years, 1/6. Meenu D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 21 years, 1/7. Anjana D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 18 years, All R/o village Mahua Khera, Tehsil Kherawar, Distt. Agra (UP). ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Labour Court, Bharatpur. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Project, Sub-Division II, Srimahaveerji, District Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma Additional Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 09/01/2026 1. The present writ petition is directed against award dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Labour Court') whereby the termination of the deceased petitioner–workman, namely, Mahendra was held to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred as the [2026:RJ-JP:716] (2 of 6) [CW-14296/2013] 'Act of 1947') and instead of reinstatement, the petitioner– workman was directed to be paid lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- by Respondent No. 2-employer. Aggrieved thereby, the deceased workman has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-workman, Mahendra expired and vide order dated 04.12.2025, legal heirs of the deceased-workman were taken on record. 2. The factual matrix, in brief, reveals that the deceased petitioner–workman was engaged as Beldar by Respondent No.2 on daily wages on 01.06.1986. His engagement was not pursuant to any regular process of recruitment, nor against a sanctioned post. Upon discontinuance of his services on 01.06.1987, an industrial dispute was raised by the deceased-workman through concerned Union in 1991, culminating in the impugned award dated 17.04.2013. The Labour Court, while recording a finding that the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with qua the deceased-workman, however, instead of relief of reinstatement, benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner–workman challenged the impugned award and submitted that once the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding of illegal retrenchment for non- compliance with Section 25F of the Act of 1947, reinstatement with continuity of service is the normal and logical relief. It was argued that denial of reinstatement would amount to legitimizing an illegal act of the employer. Learned counsel further contended [2026:RJ-JP:716] (3 of 6) [CW-14296/2013] that the workman had completed the requisite period of service to attract the protection of the Act of 1947 and that the Labour Court has failed to exercise its discretion in not granting relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 and Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 29.01.2025 in SLP(Civil) no. 20902/2024 in support of his contentions. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any manifest error in not granting reinstatement as a matter of course merely upon finding violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. It was urged that the deceased petitioner-workman, who was engaged purely as a daily wager/contractual employee, had rendered only short-term service and was never appointed through a regular selection process. Learned Additional Government Counsel further submitted that there was a long lapse of time between the date of termination and the adjudication of the dispute and during such period, the very nature of the employer’s establishment/ department has undergone substantial change. Reliance was placed upon catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer PWD: (2021) 14 SCC 815, State of Uttarakhand & Anr. v. Raj Kumar: (2019) 14 SCC 353, and the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), to contend that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of a technical [2026:RJ-JP:716] (4 of 6) [CW-14296/2013] violation of Section 25F, and monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. 5. In view of the rival submissions, the principal question that arises for consideration before this Court is that whether the Labour Court was justified in not granting the relief of reinstatement despite violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, or whether the award deserves to be modified by substituting the amount of monetary compensation. 6. It is no longer res integra that violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 renders the retrenchment illegal. However, the more nuanced and settled position of law is that the nature of relief consequent to such illegality is not automatic and must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The earlier approach of treating reinstatement as an inevitable consequence has undergone a marked and reasoned shift. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal: (2014) 7 SCC 177, followed consistently in subsequent decisions including Ranbir Singh (supra) and State of Uttarakhand & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar (supra), has clearly held that in cases involving daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual employees, particularly where the engagement was for a short duration and the dispute has been adjudicated after a long lapse of time, monetary compensation is a more appropriate and equitable relief than reinstatement. The Apex Court has cautioned against mechanical reinstatement which may disturb the administrative and financial equilibrium of the employer. 8. In Ranbir Singh (supra), despite holding that Section 25F was violated, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined [2026:RJ-JP:716] (5 of 6) [CW-14296/2013] reinstatement and awarded lump sum compensation, observing that there was no material to suggest unfair labour practice or victimization. Similarly, in Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that reinstatement should not be granted as a matter of routine and emphasized proportional compensation based on length of service @ Rupees 1.5 Lakh per year for the period the employee had worked. 9. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhagwan Das & Anr. 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 8518 referring to other decisions following the same line, has consistently adopted the principle that reinstatement of daily wagers after decades of litigation serves neither industrial harmony nor justice, and compensation is a pragmatic substitute. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the deceased petitioner-workman was engaged as a daily wager, de hors any regular recruitment process and had rendered limited service. There is no finding recorded by the Labour Court of any mala fide action or unfair labour practice. Moreover, a considerable period has elapsed since the date of termination. In such circumstances, directing reinstatement would be wholly disproportionate and contrary to the settled legal position. 11. This Court is conscious that the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not appellate in nature; however, where the Labour Court grants relief in disregard of binding precedents and settled principles of law, interference is not only permissible, but necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. [2026:RJ-JP:716] (6 of 6) [CW-14296/2013] 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that while the finding of the Labour Court regarding violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 qua the deceased petitioner-workman does not warrant any interference, the relief of reinstatement prayed by deceased petitioner– workman cannot be granted. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra) and the impugned award dated 17.04.2013 is modified to the extent that the legal heirs of the deceased- petitioner–workman shall be entitled to lump sum monetary compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousands) for the period the workman had worked, taking into account the nature of engagement, length of service and the time elapsed since termination. The said amount shall be paid by Respondent No.2 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /4