[2026:RJ-JP:24151] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5725/2002 URN: CW / 8858U / 2002 Radhey Shyam Rathore Son Of Late Shri Ram Chandra Rathore, 2-P-14, Mahaveer Nagar-Iii, Kota ----Petitioner Versus 1. Manager Multi Metals Limited, Heavy Industrial Area, Kansua Road, Kota 2. The Judge, Labour Court, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Pratap Singh. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 01/07/2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “Therefore, it is prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned Award dated 01.03.2002 may kindly be modified to the extent allowing 25% of the back-wages and it may be directed that this petitioner will get full back-wages instead of 25% of the back-wages. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner, may also be awarded to the petitioner.” By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 01.03.2002 passed by the learned [2026:RJ-JP:24151] (2 of 2) [CW-5725/2002] Labour Court, Kota, whereby the petitioner was granted reinstatement in service along with only 25% back wages. Grievance of the petitioner is that once the learned Labour Court had ordered his reinstatement, it ought to have awarded full back wages instead of restricting the same to 25%. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite the matter having been called in the second round. I have perused the material available on record. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court has rightly exercised its discretion in awarding only 25% back wages. The record reveals that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere, therefore, no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Labour Court in passing the award dated 01.03.2002 warranting interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/34