[2026:RJ-JP:12737] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8684/2024 Chaganlal S/o Shri Parmoli Jatav, Resident Of Rendayal Gurjar Tehsil Gangapur District Sawaimadhopur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Division Hindon District Karauli. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6780/2024 Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division- Hindaun, District- Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus Chaggan Lal S/o Shri Parmoli Jatav, R/o Rayndayal Gurjar, Tehsil- Gangapur, District- Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig in CWP No.8684/2024 Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Dy. GC in CWP No.6780/2024 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Dy. GC in CWP No.8684/2024 Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig in CWP No.6780/2024 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 24/03/2026 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8684/2024 is filed with following prayer:- "(i) The impugned award dated 31.5.2023 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur may kindly be modified and further respondent may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner along with [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (2 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] continuity, back wages and all consequential benefits may be extended at par and from the date on which junior person has been granted, along with 9% interest; (ii) any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner;" 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6780/2024 is filed 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 31.05.2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur in case LCR No. 113/2005, "Chaggan Vs. Assistant Engineer, PWD." 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 petitioners and in the interest of justice." 3. Both the writ petitions are filed aggrieved from award dated 31.05.2023 in LCR No. 113/2005 passed by learned Labour Court, Bharatpur whereby in a reference dated 11.04.2005, the Labour Court after declaring the termination order of workman Chaggan Lal, dated 01.03.1989 as unfair and illegal, has directed the employer to pay lump sum compensation of ₹1,50,000/- within a period of two months and if same is not paid within two months then the employer is required to pay interest @ 7% per annum. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman while placing reliance upon order dated 27.10.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17115/2022 (Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs. President, Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti) has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits along with continuity. He further submits that the workman has [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (3 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] rendered more than one year as a daily wager but the Labour Court after declaring the termination as illegal and unfair has not considered the issue of reinstatement. He further submits that the workman is entitled for reinstatement as his juniors were regularized after reinstatement by the employer. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employer and submitted that the statement of claim of the workman indicate that he has worked from 01.01.1988 to 01.03.1989 and after 15 years he raised the dispute. He also submits that Labour Court has not considered that there was no muster roll to reflect that any of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was violated by the employer. He further submits that findings recorded by the Labour Court is contrary to the settled position of law. He further referred the facts and submitted that the workman has worked only for six day in January, 1988 and there is no record to show that the workman has worked for 240 days continuously. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with judgment as referred by learned counsel for the workman. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the workman Chaggan Lal has raised a dispute which was referred on 11.04.2005 by the Labour Department to the Labour Court that workman has worked from 01.01.1988 to 01.03.1989 and his services were terminated on 01.03.1989 which is unfair and illegal. Initially, the reference was decided against workman and workman has preferred a Writ Petition No.1347/2015. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while setting aside award dated 05.01.2015 has remitted back the [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (4 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] matter to the Labour Court, Bharatpur. After considering the material, a fresh award is passed on 31.05.2023 whereby the Labour Court has held that the termination of services of workman from 01.03.1989 was unfair and illegal and instead of reinstatement, the Labour Court has awarded compensation of ₹1,50,000/-. 8. In case of Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs. President, Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti (supra), this Court has cosidered several judgments and found that the workman has rendered service from March, 2000 to 19.07.2007 and raised the dispute which was referred to Labour Court on 13.11.2010. This Court has allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement instead of compensation. 9. The workman has rendered nearly one year of service though this claim is also challenged by the employer by filing Writ Petition No.6780/2024. The dispute is also raised after a delay of 15 years. The material on record also indicate that on earlier occasion on 05.01.2015, the Labour Court has drawn a conclusion against the workman and rejected his prayer but after intervention by this Court, the matter was remitted back and now the award is before us. 10. In the case of Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136, it was held that in cases of holding termination invalid, reinstatement is not natural consequences. The grant of a relief of reinstatement is not an automatic consequence, where the termination is declared as bad and contrary to provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (5 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] 11. In case of Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma reported in (2018) 18 SCC 80 following ratio in case of Gitam Singh (supra), it was held that the court should consider the duration of service, nature of employment and time lapsed since termination, while considering issue of reinstatement of workman. 12. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if the order of termination is found to be violative of the provisions of the Act of 1947, reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic and monetary compensation may be granted instead. In the said case, the period of engagement was very short and the Court has closed the dispute by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 13. In the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Raj Kumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353 and Ranveer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR Online 2021 SC 794, it was held that delay affects the chances of reinstatement and in every matter reinstatement is not the only remedy, and the Court may award suitable compensation. 14. A Division Bench of this Court has also considered an identical issue in the case of Director, Tiger Project, Sariska v. Industrial Tribunal, Alwar & Another, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.406/2018 and while deciding a bunch of petitions observed that during the intervening period of 25–30 years or more, the workmen would have already settled in their lives and it would not be appropriate to reinstate them after such lapse of time. Instead, a formula for grant of compensation was devised [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (6 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] and it was observed that the interest of justice would be served if compensation is calculated at the rate of ₹1,00,000/- for service of one year, ₹1,50,000/- for two years, ₹2,50,000/- for service of three years and ₹3,00,000/- for more than three years of service. 15. In the case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. and Anr.: Civil Appeal No.1198/2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20902/2024, judgment dated 29.01.2025), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering an issue where the individuals had worked for about three years, instead of reinstatement granted compensation to them. 16. Considering aforementioned legal position, the workman is not entitled for reinstatement. The workman has raised the dispute after a substantial delay and delay of 15 years is sufficient to deny the reinstatement. The case of Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs. President, Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti (supra) is not applicable upon the facts of this case. 17. The employer has challenged the award on ground of delay and also on facts. This Court has already considered the effect of delay in making a reference but as regard to fact is concerned, in particular, the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in examining the award, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of General Manager, ONGC, Silchar versus ONGC Contractual Union, reported as (2008) 12 SCC 275, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (7 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (8 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] 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 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.” 18. Aforementioned provisions clearly indicate that supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether the tribunal has acted [2026:RJ-JP:12737] (9 of 9) [CW-8684/2024] contrary to the legal provision or the material placed on record. The scope is not to appreciate or re-appreciate the facts, therefore, considering the aforesaid, there is no ground for interference in award dated 31.05.2023. 19. In view of discussion made hereinabove, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6780/2024 filed by the employer sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8684/2024, the workman is not entitled for reinstatement but considering the judgment in case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. and Anr. (supra), the workman has served nearly 1 year and 2 months, therefore, @ ₹ 1,50,000/- per annum, he is entitled for compensation of ₹1,75,000/- instead of ₹1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the award is modified but the workman is not entitled for any interest as directed by the Labour Court. 20. In view of discussion made hereinabove, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6780/2024 is hereby dismissed but S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8684/2024 is partly allowed and award dated 31.05.2023 is partly modified to the extent that the workman is entitled for compensation of ₹1,75,000/- from the employer and same is payable within a period of three months. 21. With the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/45-46