Allowed

State of Raj. v. Smt. Budhwanti and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2014CW/3057/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the State's writ petition, dismissing the wrongful termination of a sweeper. Relying on recent Supreme Court trends and a Division Bench precedent, the Court dismissed reinstatement as unjust after years of lapse, upholding the Tribunal's award of compensation in lieu.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The Tribunal's award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement is maintained as correct.

State of Raj. Vs Smt. Budhwanti and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3057/2000 State of Rajathan Vs. Smt. Budhwanti & Anr.

¶2

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶3

1/4

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3057/2000

¶6

State of Rajasthan through the Superintendent, the Joint Group of Hospitals, Udaipur Vs.

¶7

Smt. Budhwanti & Anr.

Date of Order

:::

04th March, 2014

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

None present for the petitioner- State. Mr. .S.D. Purohit, for the respondent No.1/workman.

¶15

BY THE COURT :

¶16

1. None present for the petitioner-State (Medical & Health Department).

¶17

2. The petitioner-State/employer has filed the present writ petition against the impugned judgment and award dated 06.01.2000, passed by learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal holding that the retrenchment of the respondent/workman (Smt. Budhwanti) who was working as sweeper from the services of Group of Public Hospitals, in Udaipur, w.e.f. 01.04.1987 was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1947'). The learned Tribunal by its award has directed the payment of

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3057/2000 State of Rajathan Vs. Smt. Budhwanti & Anr.

¶19

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶20

2/4

¶21

compensation of Rs.18,000/- in lieu of reinstatement back in service with full back wages.

¶22

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent/workman, this Court is satisfied that the impugned judgment and award of the learned Industrial Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court in view of recent trend of the Hon'ble 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.

¶23

4. 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: -

¶24

“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

¶25

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3057/2000 State of Rajathan Vs. Smt. Budhwanti & Anr.

¶26

Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶27

3/4

¶28

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.

¶29

xxx

¶30

xxx

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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”.

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3057/2000 State of Rajathan Vs. Smt. Budhwanti & Anr. Order dt: 04/03/2014

¶35

4/4

¶36

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner-State/employer is found to be bereft of any merit and same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.

¶37

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶38

DJ/5

State of Raj. v. Smt. Budhwanti and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. v. Smt. Budhwanti 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 Manak Chand and Anr.