[2026:RJ-JP:8062] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8505/2024 Pooran Jatav S/o Shri Chothi Lal Jatav, Resident of Rendayal Gurjar Tehsil Gangapur District Sawaimadhopur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Division Hindon, District Karauli. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Paliwal for Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging award dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby although termination of the petitioner from services of the respondent has been held to be illegal, yet instead of granting benefit of reinstatement along with consequential benefits, lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lakhs have been awarded to the petitioner. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner has stated that he was initially engaged on the post of Beldar on daily wages basis in January 1972. He worked continuously thereafter for as many as 14 years, however, without making compliance of Section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter [2026:RJ-JP:8062] (2 of 6) [CW-8505/2024] to be referred as 'the Act of 1947') his services were terminated w.e.f. 01.01.1986. 3. Feeling aggrieved by his termination, the petitioner raised dispute after 18 years in the year 2004 before the Conciliation Officer. On account of there being no consensus between the parties, the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report and ultimately the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication, where terms of reference were that as to whether raising industrial dispute by the petitioner after 18 years was tenable in the eye of law or not; and as to whether the petitioner had worked since the year 1972 to 31.12.1985 and had rendered continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just preceding his date of termination; and whether termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1986 was valid and proper or not, and if not, for what relief the petitioner was entitled. 4. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court considered the statement of claim, reply to the claim as well as evidence led by both the parties and it was held that although the petitioner had raised industrial dispute after a delay of 18 years, yet as there was no limitation for raising industrial dispute at the relevant time, therefore, merely on the basis of delay in raising industrial dispute, relief cannot be denied to the petitioner, however, the question of delay shall be considered while ascertaining the point of relief. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner could successfully prove before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days prior to his termination in a calendar year just preceding his date of [2026:RJ-JP:8062] (3 of 6) [CW-8505/2024] termination and also proved that the respondents did not make compliance of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 prior to terminating the services of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submits that once the termination has been held illegal by the Labour Court, the natural relief was reinstatement with all consequential benefits as held in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324. 6. Learned counsel, in the alternative submitted that even if, for any reason whatsoever, reinstating the petitioner back in service was not possible, even then awarding only 3 lakhs as compensation in the circumstances, where earlier to illegal termination, the petitioner had worked for more than 13 years, is totally disproportionate and unjustified. Therefore, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Another, (SLP (Civil) No.20902/2024 decided on 29.01.2025), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the aforesaid case, Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a formula that while calculating compensation, the workman shall be entitled for Rs.1.5 lakhs per year for the period he had worked prior to date of termination. Hence, in case, on the basis of aforesaid formula, compensation is calculated then it comes to 1.5*13=19.5 lakhs. Learned counsel submits that in comparison to aforesaid entitlement of the petitioner, he has been awarded a meagre amount under the head of compensation. [2026:RJ-JP:8062] (4 of 6) [CW-8505/2024] 7. Learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposed the writ petition and submitted that the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner was not at all entertainable only on account of the fact that the petitioner raised industrial dispute after 18 years of termination. Such stale claim was not tenable in the eye of law, still Labour Court has taken a lenient view and has granted compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner, which under the circumstances, where the dispute was raised after 18 years from the date of termination, cannot be said to be unjustified or unreasonable. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not disputed that the respondents have not challenged award dated 30.05.2023, therefore, at this stage, no argument can be raised on behalf of the respondents that the Labour Court has wrongly entertained the statement of claim filed by the petitioner. 10. So far as contention of the petitioner is concerned that since, termination has been held as illegal by the Labour Court, therefore, benefit of relief of reinstatement along with other consequential benefits should have been given, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner was not regularly appointed and was merely a daily wager. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner had raised the dispute after 18 years from the date of termination. Hence, by the date, the dispute was adjudicated by the Labour Court, in between around 37 years have lapsed since the date of termination of the petitioner and even the petitioner had also crossed the age of superannuation. [2026:RJ-JP:8062] (5 of 6) [CW-8505/2024] Therefore, in the light of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal reported in 2014 (7) SCC 177, no error has been committed by the Labour Court in denying the benefit of reinstatement along with consequential benefits to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), so as to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs per year and thus, Rs.19.5 lakhs for completing 13 years of service prior to date of termination. This Court respectfully examined the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and found that in that case, there was no objection with regard to raising the dispute with considerable delay. Question of delay is a relevant point, which can always be taken into consideration while granting relief under the circumstances. Although, the petitioner has tried to justify the delay by stating that he was a poor and illiterate person, and was under the impression of the assurances given by Union leaders that his dispute was pending before the competent authority. However, no evidence in support thereof has been given by the petitioner. Even otherwise, on the basis of such vague and hollow statements, the delay of 18 years cannot be justified by the petitioner. Hence, merely by citing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), the petitioner cannot claim compensation at the same rate, which has been granted in the aforesaid case. 12. However, this Court finds that the Labour Court has referred to the judgment of Shanti Bai Vs. Labour Court, Kota reported in RLW 2013 (1) 362, where the workman worked [2026:RJ-JP:8062] (6 of 6) [CW-8505/2024] from one year to two years and five months and the dispute was raised after around 10 years and 7 years respectively, yet compensation of Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- per workman was awarded, which was subsequently enhanced by this Court from Rs.60,000/- to 1,25,000/-. However, in the instant case, where the petitioner has raised the industrial dispute after a period of 18 years, this Court deems it just and proper to hold that the petitioner would be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per year for the period during which he has worked. 13. Since, the petitioner has worked for a period of 13 years prior to his date of termination, therefore, he shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.13*60,000=7,80,000/-. Award dated 30.05.2023 is modified accordingly. In case, the petitioner has accepted the compensation as awarded by the Labour Court vide award dated 30.05.2023, the amount already accepted by the petitioner shall be adjusted from the amount of Rs.7,80,000/-. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /181