[2026:RJ-JP:8021] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5246/2000 1. State of Rajasthan Through Divisional Forest Officer, Dholpur. 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Sarmathura, Distt. Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ram Shree Widow of Late Doongar Singh. R/o Bhawanpura, Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur. 2. The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy. G.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ms. Kirti Mishra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 19/02/2026 1. This S.B. Civil Writ petition is preferred against the award passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No.152/96 dated 22.06.2000 whereby, the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent from 01.01.1993 and also to pay the arrears and consequential benefits from the date of award. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the award passed by the concerned Court is without proper appreciation of the evidence. The respondent No.1 failed to show that they continuously worked as daily wagers from 16.12.1986 to 31.12.1992. It is also contended that no receipt or documents were produced by the respondent and oral evidence was not suffice to prove that respondent worked continuously for 240 days [2026:RJ-JP:8021] (2 of 4) [CW-5246/2000] as workmen, therefore, the award dated 22.06.2000 may be set aside. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 does not seek prayer of reinstatement and only claims fair compensation. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 justifies the award passed by the Labour Court. 4. It is submitted that after filing an application for calling the muster roll, the respondents No.2 directed the petitioner to submit the muster roll from the period of 16.12.1986 to 31.12.1992, however, despite the specific order, no such muster roll was submitted before the Labour Court and Labour Court rightly presumed that the respondent No.1 was retrenched from the service without giving any notice and compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance upon the judgment of Ramprasad Mali Vs. The Regional Officer and other connected matter in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3737/2016 in which at Para-6, the Court observed that " Learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur has failed to take notice of the earlier order passed by the Labour Court dated 23.09.2010 whereby the record has been directed to be produced relating to the muster rolls and the attendance register. There has been default on the part of the respondents for which they could not have been given any benefit. The burden of proof shifted with the directions issued by the Labour Court dated 23.09.2010." 6. It is further contended that the said order was challenged before the Division Bench in Special Appeal Writ No.1667/2017 & Division Bench affirmed the order passed by the Single Bench and granted compensation. [2026:RJ-JP:8021] (3 of 4) [CW-5246/2000] 7. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment passed in Rajasthan State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Singh in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3887/2016 and 4017/2016 decided on 28.07.2021, whereby, after relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank Vs. Pancham Lal Yadav Civil Appeal No.9792/2010 decided on 13.07.2021. 8. Heard and perused the material available on record. 9. In the case of Executive Engineer & Another Vs. In Shri Ram Ji Lal (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3369/2017, decided on 27.02.2025), the Court's Co-ordinate Bench undertook a thorough examination of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, supported by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Incharge Officer Vs Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 and BSNL Vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177. Additionally, the Court considered the ruling in Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs. Sharfuddin (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019), ultimately directing that a fair compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs be awarded. 10. Building on the principles established in Executive Engineer & Another Vs. Shri Ram Ji Lal (supra), in which the Court scrutinised the workman's five-year service period before termination, it is now fitting to amend the original award dated 13.12.1999 issued by the Labour Court. Instead of reinstating Respondent No. 2 and awarding additional relief, the Court has decided that Respondent No. 2 should receive a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. [2026:RJ-JP:8021] (4 of 4) [CW-5246/2000] 11. The petitioners must pay this amount within three months of receiving a certified copy of this judgment. Should they delay, interest at 6% per annum will accrue until the payment is made. 12. The petitioners' request to set aside the award is denied; instead, the award is modified as specified above. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/92