[2026:RJ-JP:4573] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20936/2019 Kishan Lal S/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 59 Years, Jariye Pradesh Mahamantri, Anusuchit Jati/jan Jati Mahasangh, Dhola Bhata Mukhya Marg Nagvai, Ajmer, District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Executive Officer, Janswasthya Abhiyantriki Vibhag, Nagar Khand, Utpadan Avem Vitran, Nal Godam, Ajmer. 2. Mukhya Abhiyanta, Janswasthya Abhiyantriki Vibhag, Raj. Sarkar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Sneha Kaushal, Ms. Gunjan Chawla and Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 31/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- “1- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns”k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ”k tkjh dj vokMZ fnukad 15-10-2019 esa ;kph eqvkotk :- 2]00]000 fnyk;s tkus ds vkns”k dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksus ds dkj.k vikLr djus dh d`ik djsaA 2- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns'k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ'k tkjh dj izR;FkhZ dks funsZf'kr djsa fd ;kph dks lsok dh fujUrjrk] fiNys iw.kZ osru o vU; lHkh ifjykHkksa lfgr Hkqxrku e; 12 izfr'kr C;kt ds djsaA 3- vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; izdj.k ds rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq;s mfpr le>s fnykus dh d`ik djsaA ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has declared termination order dated 26.02.2000 as unfair [2026:RJ-JP:4573] (2 of 5) [CW-20936/2019] and illegal, but instead of reinstatement with all consequential benefits, the petitioner was awarded one-time compensation of ₹2,00,000/-. He further submits that the petitioner has rendered nine years' service and same is acknowledged by the respondents before the Industrial Tribunal. He also submits that the award of ₹2,00,000/- as compensation for nine years' service is insufficient in view of this judgment dated 29.01.2025 in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR. in Civil Appeal No(s). ………….. of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Civil) No(s). 20902/2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that if the petitioner is not reinstated in the service, then at least compensation on the basis of farmula as suggested in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR. (supra) be granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that neither there was any sanctioned post nor selection of petitioner on regular post. He further referred judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed in case of The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar and Anr. : DB Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and bunch of petitions and submitted that as per formula adopted by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, a workman is entitled for compensation of ₹1,00,000/- if his services are less than one year, ₹1,50,000/- for service upto 2 years, and if same is three years then ₹2,50,000/-, but in case it is more than three years then ₹3,00,000/-. He submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:4573] (3 of 5) [CW-20936/2019] writ petition may be disposed in light of judgment of the Division Bench and maximum compensation payable is ₹3,00,000/-. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The Labour Court in award has observed that the petitioner has rendered nine years of service with the respondents and termination of service on 26.02.2000 was unfair and illegal, but instead of reinstatement to the service, the workman was granted compensation of ₹2,00,000/-. 6. The respondents have not challenged the award, therefore the termination of service on 26.02.2000 is unfair and illegal. The observation made it clear that the petitioner has rendered nine years of service with the respondent. The fact clearly indicates that the petitioner remained absent for several years and ultimately his services were terminated in the year 2000. The material clearly indicates that the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.01.1982 and after 28.05.1991 he remained absent till termination on 26.02.2000. Thus, the petitioner has not remained in service after 28.05.1991, though the reference was made on 24.05.2005. There was a delay not only in reporting duty but also raising the dispute. 7. In cases of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. vs Gitram Singh : (2014) 11 SCC 214 and BSNL vs Bhurumal : (2014) 7 SCC 177, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that in case of daily wagers, casual labour or workmen, who have rendered only a short spell of service, reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of a procedural violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [2026:RJ-JP:4573] (4 of 5) [CW-20936/2019] 8. Here in this case, the petitioner has worked upto 26.05.1991 and since then he remained absent and turned up only in the year 2001, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for automatic reinstatement, even if the termination order was declared unfair and illegal. 9. The only option is payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In the case of The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar and Anr. (supra), a division bench of this Court has observed that during intervening period of 25 to 30 years or more, the workman has already settled in their life, thus, the interest of justice would be served if compensation is calculated @ ₹1,00,000/- for service of 1 year, ₹1,50,000/- for service of 2 years, ₹2,50,000/- for service of 3 years and ₹3,00,000/- for more than service of 3 years. An issue was recently considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed for compensation @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum for the period for which the workman has worked with respondents in lieu of reinstatement. 10. Since we have the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, we have to apply the ratio in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum for service of 9 years, rendered by him in respondents-Department. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and award dated 15.10.2019 passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in LCR No. 11/2005 (CIS No.42/2019) is modified to the [2026:RJ-JP:4573] (5 of 5) [CW-20936/2019] extent that the petitioner is entitled for a lump sum compensation of ₹13,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The respondents are directed to make the payment within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the petitioner is also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from today. 12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/9