[2026:RJ-JP:14827-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1119/2023 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22914/2017 Babu Lal Son Of Shri Birdhi Chand Meena, aged about 52 years, Resident of Kant, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus Atirict Collector (Vikas), Zila Apurti Avem Vipnan Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/04/2026 1. The instant special appeal writ is preferred by the appellant- writ petitioner aggrieved from order dated 10.05.2023 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.22914/2017 passed by the learned single judge, whereby the learned Single Judge considering that a lump sum compensation of ₹75,000/- awarded to the writ petitioner- workman by the Labour Court is inadequate, has directed the employer to pay ₹3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. & Anr. : Civil Appeal No(s)......... of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Civil) No(s). 20902/2024 and connected matter, Hon'ble [2026:RJ-JP:14827-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1119/2023] Supreme Court has directed compensation to be paid @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum. He submits that the appellant-writ petitioner is entitled for compensation if reinstatement is refused to him. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and submits that the Labour Court, after considering case of appellant-writ petitioner has found that the appellant-writ petitioner/workman is not entitled for reinstatement and granted compensation of ₹75,000/- but same was enhanced to ₹3,00,000/- by learned Single Judge. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the appellant-writ petitioner has worked as daily wager from 05.09.1990 to 28.11.1995 with the respondent. The appellant-writ petitioner has challenged termination order dated 28.11.1995 by raising an industrial dispute and same was referred on 17.10.1997 to the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. The Labour Court after examining the claim and defence of the parties, has declared termination dated 28.11.1995 as unfair and illegal, but instead of reinstatement, directed a lump sum compensation of ₹75,000/- to be paid to the workman. The workman has challenged the award by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 22914/2017 and learned Single Judge has modified the award by enhancing compensation to ₹3,00,000/-, in lieu of reinstatement. Now the workman-writ petitioner is before us and claiming that the compensation be paid @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum. 6. In case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. & Anr (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the cases [2026:RJ-JP:14827-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1119/2023] where termination is found to be illegal, held that grant of reinstatement cannot be applied mechanically. Instead of reinstatement, granted compensation @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum for the period for which the workman has worked. The appellant- writ petitioner is also entitled for compensation on the basis of formula laid down in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra). Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed only to enhance the compensation. 7. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellant- writ petitioner is entitled to a lump sum compensation of ₹7,50,000/- from the respondent. Thus, the respondent is directed to pay ₹7,50,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the appellant-writ petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Single Judge and the award of the Labour Court is modified. 8. With the aforesaid, the special appeal writ stands disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MR/50