Partly allowed

Kalyan Singh v. Judge, Labour Court,Jodhpur and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Jan 2014CW/3103/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan quashed the Labour Court's refusal to reinstate a workman retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While affirming the alternative relief of compensation, the Court held the original lump-sum award was inadequate due to the petitioner's tenure of over three years and enhanced it to Rs. 75,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 75,000 to be paid by the respondents within three months.

Kalyan Singh Vs Judge, Labour Court,Jodhpur and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶3

JODHPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3103/2000

¶6

Kalyan Singh Vs. Judge, Labour Court

¶7

Date of Order : January 13, 2014

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA, J.

¶9

Mr. SKM VYAS, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukul Singhvi, for the respondent/s.

¶10

¶11

By the instant writ petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the impugned award dated 07.11.1998 (annexure/10) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. The learned Labour Court, while adjudicating the reference made by the appropriate Government has found that termination of the petitioner by his employers is illegal and void, as the same is not in consonance and conformity with the mandatory provisions, contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `Act of 1947'). While recording the said finding, learned Labour Court has declined relief of reinstatement to the petitioner and instead has granted him alternative relief of lump-sump amount of Rs. 21,000/- only.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. SKM Vyas has argued that when the learned Labour Court has found that retrenchment was illegal and bad in law, it ought to have been granted relief of reinstatement to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. Mr. Vyas further submits that for not granting said relief, the learned Labour Court has not recorded any finding, mush less cogent reasons. Mr. Vyas has urged that the petitioner has served for more than 3 ½ years and there was a categorical finding recorded by the learned Labour court that he has rendered 240 days' service in a calender year preceding his date of retrenchment, therefore, in these circumstances, the appropriate relief would have been reinstatement in the services. With these submissions, learned counsel has argued that the impugned award is liable to be modified. In the alternative, Mr. Vyas has argued that lump-sum amount of compensation awarded by the labour Court is grossly inadequate, looking to the tenure of the employment of the petitioner, and the same is liable to be enhanced adequately to meet the ends of justice.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in every case, where it is noticed by the Tribunal that the termination is contrary to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act of 1947, it is not obligatory for the

¶15

¶16

learned Labour Court to grant relief of reinstatement and such relief can be molded in the background of facts of an individual case. While stoutly defending the amount awarded, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court is just, which calls for no interference.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award.

¶18

On examining the impugned award thoroughly, it is ipso facto clear that the findings of the learned Labour Court are bit in-consistent but finally while adjudicating the reference, learned Labour Court has recorded an affirmative finding that the petitioner has worked for 240 days in a calender year preceding to his date of retrenchment.

¶19

While adverting to the grant of relief in such cases, the learned Labour Court has recorded the finding that it is not necessary for the Court to grant relief of reinstatement in each and every case and with this finding has resorted to grant of alternative relief namely lump-sum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶20

In my considered opinion, the discretion exercised by the learned Laobur Court in the given circumstances, prima

¶21

¶22

facie cannot be categorized as infirm, warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, looking to the duration of the service of the petitioner, i.e. more than three years, this Court feels that the lump-sum amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in lieu of reinstatement is grossly inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced in the interest of justice. Therefore, in totality of circumstances, I deem it just and proper to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- only. Respondents are directed to pay the requisite lump-sum amount of enhanced compensation to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The award is accordingly modified.

¶23

(P.K. LOHRA), J.

¶24

ns. 7

Kalyan Singh v. Judge, Labour Court,Jodhpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Singh v. Judge, Labour Court,Jodhpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deva Ram Vs Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

Principal, Doongar College, Bikaner Vs Narpat Singh and Anr.

Manohar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gauri Lal Dayama Vs Bhilwara-Ajmer Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Commissioner,Municipal Corporation,Jod. Vs Judge, Labour Court,Jod. and Anr.

Shri Kishan Sharma Vs State of Raj.