Partly allowed

State of Raj. v. Manak Chand and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2014CW/2147/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench held that reinstatement of a workman after a lapse of nearly 29 years would not subserve the interest of justice. Following the trend of the Apex Court, the Court modified the award to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement, directing the employer to pay Rs.20,000 plus an additional Rs.15,000. It also disposed of a connected writ petition concerning an illegal termination order.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to grant lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000 (with additional Rs.15,000 from the Officer) in lieu of reinstatement; connected writ petition disposed of by merger.

State of Raj. Vs Manak Chand and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2147/2001 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr. & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2004 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr.

¶2

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶3

1/6

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

ORDER

¶6

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2147/2001 State of Rajasthan through Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sri Ganganagar

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Manak Chand & Anr. With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2004

¶9

State of Rajasthan through Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sri Ganganagar Vs.

¶10

Manak Chand & Anr.

¶11

Date of Order

¶12

th ::: 04 March, 2014

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

Mr. Rishabh Tayal on behalf of Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG for the petitioner/State. Mr. Ankur Mathur, for the respondent No.1/workman.

¶17

BY THE COURT :

¶18

1. The petitioner-State (Forest Department) has filed the present writ petition (CW No.2144/2000) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 28.10.1999 passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in Labour Case No.40/98

¶19

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2147/2001 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr. &

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2004 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr.

¶21

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶22

2/6

¶23

(6/94) – Manak Chand Vs. Dy. Conservator of Forest, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has held that termination of the respondent/workman- Manak Chand S/o Kanhaiya Lal, w.e.f. 04.06.1985 was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter, referred to as 'Act of 1947').

¶24

2. The respondent/workman was employed on daily wages worker in the petitioner- Forest Department w.e.f. 06.06.1983. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman in service with 20% back wages.

¶25

3. By the orders of the coordinate bench of this Court, the petitioner- State through its Forest Department was directed to make payment of wages to the respondent/workman u/s 17-B of the Act of 1947. The orders dated 13.04.2009 and 20.11.2013 in the present are quoted below for ready reference: -

¶26

Order dated 13.04.2009

¶27

“An application is preferred as per provisions of Sec.17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated by the respondent-workman that he is not at all in any gainful employment and therefore, the petitioneremployer should make payment of wages month-bymonth as per provisions of sec.17B of the Act of 1947. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-workman that despite no order staying operation and effect of the award dated 28^th October, 1999, the petitioner-employer has not reinstated the

¶28

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2147/2001 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr. &

¶29

3/6

¶30

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2004 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr.

¶31

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶32

workman and as such, the employer deserves prosecution as per provisions of sec.25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶33

Shri R.L. Jangid, learned Addl. Advocate General

¶34

wants some time to examine the matter.

¶35

Time prayed for is allowed.

¶36

Put up on 20^th April, 2009.”

¶37

Order dated 20.11.2013

¶38

“Learned counsel for the respondent submits that despite order dated 13.4.2009 no payment has been made to the workman as per provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶39

Shri R.L. Jangid submits that if the amount aforesaid has not been paid, same shall be paid to the workman forthwith.

¶40

Let this writ petition be listed for final disposal on 23.11.2013 alongwith SBCWP No.5919/2004.

¶41

In the meanwhile, the employer shall make payment of all dues accruing to the workman in pursuant to order dated 18.11.2003.”

¶42

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/workman has stated at Bar that the respondent/workman has not been paid the wages in terms of the aforesaid orders of this Court.

¶43

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent/workman, this Court is of the opinion that reinstatement of the respondent/workman after more than 29 years now, will not subserve the interest of justice and in view of recent trend of the Hon'ble

¶44

4/6

¶45

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2147/2001 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr. & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2004 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr.

¶46

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶47

Apex Court in such cases of late now, the consistent view is that the reinstatement in such circumstances after long number of years, is not justified and in lieu of reinstatement, suitable compensation may be given to the retrenched workmen.

¶48

6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SubDivisional Officer, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. , ( DBSAW No.103/2006 , decided on 19.11.2012 ) following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Vs. Mamni reported in (2006) 9 SCC 434 and in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353 , while modifying the award of the labour court, instead of reinstatement, directed to make payment of Rs.35000/- to the respondent/workman towards compensation. The relevant and operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is quoted herein below for ready reference: -

¶49

“After having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, while we are not inclined to consider interference in the basic findings on facts by the Labour Court but then, on the question of final relief, in an overall comprehension of the matter, we are of opinion that the Labour Court ought to have considered the alternative mode of granting compensation in lieu of in restatement.

¶50

xxx

¶51

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2147/2001 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr. &

¶52

5/6

¶53

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2004 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr.

¶54

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶55

xxx

¶56

In view of considerable lapse of time and looking to the nature of the engagement of the respondentworkman, in the present case, in our opinion, awarding of compensation in lieu of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. In the fact situation of the present case and in the totality of the circumstances, it appears just and proper to substitute the final relief as granted in the award impugned by that of lump-sum compensation of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

¶57

Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The award is maintained on the basic finding but is modified in relation to the final relief; and, instead of reinstatement, the appellant is directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand) to the respondent-workman towards compensation.

¶58

It shall be required of the appellant to make payment of the amount of compensation as awarded hereinabove as early as possible; and preferably before 31.01.2013. The amount of compensation, if not paid on or before 31.01.2013, shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order until the date of payment”.

¶59

7. In the present case, the petitioner had worked only for a period of approximately two years on daily wages basis prior to his illegal termination from the services with effect from 04.06.1985, this Court is of the opinion that compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the

¶60

6/6

¶61

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2147/2001 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr. & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2004 State of Rajathan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr.

¶62

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶63

respondent/workman will be adequate and the award is thus modified to the aforesaid extent. However, since the under the interim order of this Court, the compliance of payment u/s 17B of the Act of 1947 has not been made by the petitioner- Forest Department, the concerned Dy. Conservator of Forest Department, “स�म�ज�क व�न�क�” Sri Ganganagar, will pay the additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/workman from his own pocket.

¶64

5. Accordingly, with these observations and directions the writ petition No.2147/2001 is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.

¶65

6. So far as the connected writ petition being SBCWP No.5919/2004- State of Rajasthan Vs. Manak Chand & Anr. assailing the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Hanumanarh in I.D. Case No.30/2002 allowing the application u/s 33-C of the Act of 1947 filed by the respondent/workman, is concerned, suffice it to state that in view of aforesaid order passed by this Court in CW No.2147/2001, the order impugned dated 12.12.2002 cannot be held to be illegal but the said order shall stand merged into the aforesaid modification of the award in CW No.2147/2001. The aforesaid writ petition (CW No.5919/2004) is also disposed of, accordingly.

¶66

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶67

DJ/8-9

State of Raj. v. Manak Chand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. v. Manak Chand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Sharwan Ram Saran Vs Raj. State Road Tran. Corpn. and Ors.

Smt. Sampi Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Niranjan Kumar Bohra and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Bhola Ram Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

State of Raj. Vs Smt. Budhwanti and Anr.