[2026:RJ-JP:12211] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13461/2025 Shri Abdul Jabbar Son Of Shri Abdul Gaffar through General Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Bangali Colony, Chhawani, Kota (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus The Tehsildar, Pachpahad, District Jhalawar ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh Rajawat for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 24/03/2026 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Award dated 27.06.2025 (Annx.3) passed by the Labour Court, Kota in Reference Case No. LC- 24/2004 Abdul Jabbar Vs. Tehsildar, Pachpahad may kindly be modified suitably and the relief of reinstatement in service may kindly be granted to petitioner with all consequential benefits. b) If the relief of reinstatement in service is not considered as practical and reasonable then in the alternative by an appropriate writ, order or direction the amount of fringe benefits i.e. monetary relief of lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs as compensation in lieu of relief of reinstatement may kindly be suitably increased to a lump sum of amount of Rs. 5.50 lacs and a further condition may be imposed that if the amount of compensation awarded to petitioner is not paid within the time period fixed by the Hon'ble Court, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest from date of Award (Annx. 1) on the sum awarded at the rate of interest 18% per annum. [2026:RJ-JP:12211] (2 of 4) [CW-13461/2025] c) The cost of the litigation throughout may kindly awarded to the petitioner; and d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked with respondent from 13.11.1998 to 12.05.2001 and learned Labour Court in its award has declared the termination of petitioner on 12.05.2001 as unfair and illegal, but instead of reinstatement has directed for payment of lump sum compensation of ₹2,50,000/-. He also submits that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as the petitioner has raised the dispute without any delay and the dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter before the Labour Court. He, while referring the judgment in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. and Anr. : Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Civil) No. 20902/2024), he submitted that if an order of reinstatement is not passed in favour of the petitioner, then at least the petitioner be awarded lump sum compensation @ ₹ 1,50,000/- per annum. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and he submitted that learned Labour Court has considered a fact that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis through some agency and there is no direct engagement. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is too much and petitioner is not entitled for any further relief from this Hon’ble Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the court. [2026:RJ-JP:12211] (3 of 4) [CW-13461/2025] 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-workman has raised a dispute on the ground that he worked as driver from 13.11.1998 to 12.05.2001 and without any reason his services were terminated. The Conciliation Officer has made a reference on 19.01.2004 to the Labour Court, Kota, which decided the reference on 09.04.2008 and declared the termination dated 12.05.2001 as unfair and illegal and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner. The respondent has challenged the award by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3113/2009. The petitioner has also filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15117/2020, and both the writ petitions were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench on 19.02.2025. As a result, the award dated 09.04.2008 passed by learned Labour Court, Kota, was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for decision afresh. Pursuant to the remand order, the Labour Court has decided the reference afresh on 27.06.2025. The Labour Court has declared the termination dated 12.05.2001 as unfair and illegal but instead of reinstatement, has directed compensation of ₹2,50,000/-. This award has not been challenged by the respondent. The petitioner has challenged on two grounds. Firstly, denial of relief of reinstatement and second, inadequacy of compensation. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has rendered his services in contractual capacity from 13.11.1998 to 12.05.2001 and the period is 2 years and 5 months. The Labour Court has considered the reinstatement after 24 years. The period of engagement is not too much. 7. In case of Asst. Engineer,Rajasthan Dev.Corp.& Anr. Vs. Gitam Singh : (2013) 5 SCC 136 and followed in case of [2026:RJ-JP:12211] (4 of 4) [CW-13461/2025] Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. vs. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2018) 18 SCC 80, and also in case of B.S.N.L vs Bhurumal : (2014) 7 SCC 177, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if the termination is found to be violative of provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the order of reinstatement is not an automatic. Herein, the engagement is for a shorter duration, therefore, the denial of relief of reinstatement is valid and proper, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement. 8. As regard to compensation is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. and Anr. (supra), after considering the case of individuals who worked for approximately three years, has granted a lump sum compensation @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum and the petitioner is entitled for compensation on same analogy. 9. In view of discussion made herein above, the instant petition is partly allowed and the award dated 27.06.2025 in LCR No. 24/2004 (CIS No. 24/2004) passed by the Labour Court, Kota, is modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of ₹3,62,500/- in lieu of reinstatement. The award is modified accordingly. 10. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/73