[2026:RJ-JP:5007] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16825/2022 Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division- Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Narayan, R/o In Front Of Ambedkar Dharmshala, Ward No. 5 Mirzapur, Tehsil- Gangapur, District- Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rajput for Ms. Nagama Bano HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/02/2026 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- "i) By issuance of suitable Writ, Direction or Order in the nature thereof thereby the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned Award dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur in case LCR No. 2237/2014 (10/2011), "Naresh Kumar Vs. Assistant Engineer, PWD, Division-Gangapur City" and further pleased to dismiss the statement of claim filed by the respondent in toto. ii) Any other Order or Direction, which your lordships may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice. [2026:RJ-JP:5007] (2 of 6) [CW-16825/2022] iii) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed throughout with costs." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman has raised the dispute after a delay of 12 years and due to delay, the respondent workman is not entitled for any relief, but the learned Labour Court without considering the delay has allowed the reference and awarded compensation to the respondent workman. He further submits that after several years, it is impossible for any of the Department to produce proper record and the facts before any of the Tribunal but the Labour Court taking note of the fact that the workman has abandoned his claim for reinstatement, has directed payment of compensation. He further submits that the order per se is illegal and contrary to settled canons of law. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the respondent workman has worked as daily wager, who is a rustic villager, and not aware about his right and entitlement. She further submits that the core question before the Labour Court was whether the termination order was illegal or not. She further submits that the Labour Court has awarded the compensation instead of reinstatement. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. After a dispute is raised by the respondent workman, the Labour Department has referred the same under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') for determination to the Labour Court. A specific question was framed in the reference about the delay, in particular, raising the dispute after a substantial delay, 12 years. [2026:RJ-JP:5007] (3 of 6) [CW-16825/2022] 6. The Labour Court while considering the provision of the Act of 1947, has opined that no particular limitation is prescribed for raising the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Even learned counsel has failed to show any period of limitation prescribed for raising dispute under the Act of 1947. 7. In case of the State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Raj Kumar : AIR 2019 SC 310 = (2019) 14 SCC 353, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that almost 25 years after the alleged termination, the workman has filed a petition before the Labour Court questioning the legality and correctness of his termination. The Labour Court has awarded compensation of ₹30,000/- whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation to ₹1,00,000/-. 8. The delay in raising the dispute affects the chances of reinstatement, but if the order of termination is challenged and the same is found to be illegal, then the order of reinstatement is not justified. The issue of delay was further considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ranbir Singh vs Executive Engineer PWD : 2021 AIR OnLine SC 794. 9. Having considered the material placed on record and also the ratio laid down in aforementioned cases, raising of dispute after a delay of 19 years is not a ground to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court, particularly, when award is passed for compensation instead of reinstatement. Therefore, the ground of delay raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. 10. We have considered the material placed on record in particular the basis of award passed by the learned Labour Court. [2026:RJ-JP:5007] (4 of 6) [CW-16825/2022] 11. It is settled law that interference with an award passed by the Labour Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted only in cases where the findings are perverse or there is patent illegality. The award of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal is final and no statutory appeal is provided once the award is passed by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. 12. In the case of General Manager, ONGC, Silchar versus ONGC Contractual Union, reported as (2018) 12 SCC 275, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. This Court has held time and again that the High Court had the authority to enquire as to whether a finding arrived at by the Tribunal was based on evidence and to correct an error apparent on the face of the record. The observations in Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd.'s case (2003) 6 SCC 416) are to this effect and it has been highlighted that the High Court would be fully justified in interfering with an Award of an Industrial Court on account of a patent illegality. In Seema Ghosh's case ((2006) 7 SCC 722), this Court observed that the High Court's interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with an Award of the Labour Court was justified as the Award had been rendered contrary to the law laid down by this Court and as a measure of "misplaced sympathy", and was thus perverse. The other judgments cited by Mr. Dave lay down similar principles and need not be dealt [2026:RJ-JP:5007] (5 of 6) [CW-16825/2022] with individually. It will be seen therefore that the interference would be limited to a few cases and as already noted above, in the case of a patent illegality or perversity. On the contrary, Mr. Sanyal's reliance on Sadhu Ram's case (AIR 1984 SC 1467) is more appropriate to the circumstances herein. It has been observed as under: "The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is truly wide but, for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to re-adjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those tribunals. That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. Where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in interfering. But where the tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management". We are therefore of the opinion that in the light of the facts that have come on record we find no [2026:RJ-JP:5007] (6 of 6) [CW-16825/2022] perversity or patent illegality in the Award of the Industrial Tribunal and on the contrary must appreciate that it has minutely examined the evidence in arriving at its decision. In this view of the matter, it was inappropriate for the Learned Single Judge to have re- appraised the evidence and come to a different conclusion.” 13. Thus it is necessary for the petitioner to establish a case of patent illegality or perversity in the award/judgment passed by the Labour Court. The legal position is settled that even if on facts and circumstances of the case, another view is possible, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to re-appreciate the material as considered by the Labour Court. 14. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no perversity or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court, particularly, when the order of reinstatement is not passed in favour of the respondent workman rather a compensation is awarded in lieu of reinstatement. Therefore, in absence of perversity or illegality, there is no ground to interfere in the award or compensation passed by the Labour Court, thus, there is no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. As a result, the writ petition and pending application(s), if any, are hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/79