Allowed

Ramu v. Assistant Engineer PWD

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2018CW/15690/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regarding termination of a government employee, the High Court held the Labour Court's Rs. 25,000 compensation inadequate for 7.5 years of service. Quashing the low award, the Court ordered Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Award of compensation increased to Rs. 1,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement, payable within five weeks with 6% p.a. interest.

Ramu Vs Assistant Engineer PWD — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 15690/2017

¶3

Ramu S/o Sh. Failu Kumhar, Aged About 49 Years, R/o VillageUghadmal Balaji, Post- Mirjapur, Thesil- Gangapur City, DistrictSawai Madhopur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division First Gangapur City, District- Sawai Madhopur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek Adv. For Respondent(s) : Dr. A.S. Khangarot AGC

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

25/04/2018

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dt. 14^th August, 2017, whereby the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Bharatpur has found the termination of services of the petitioner to be bad and illegal. The Tribunal, however, has confined the relief only to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and in case the said amount is not paid within a period of two months, it will carry interest @ 8% per annumn till the actual amount is paid.

¶13

The petitioner had approached earlier this court challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal, as reference was answered against him, on the ground that petitioner had raised the dispute after delay. This Court vide order dt. 12^th April, 2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15177/2015 (Dileep Singh Vs. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department) and Other

¶14

(2 of 7)

¶15

[CW-15690/2017]

¶16

connected writ petitions, allowed the petitions filed by the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the Labor Court. This Court referred back all the matters to the respective Labour Courts to pass appropriate order in the light of judgment passed in

¶17

Ajaib Singh Vs The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cumProcessing Service Society Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1999) 6 SCC 82 with regard to back wages and reinstatement.

¶18

The Labour Court, Bharatpur by the impugned award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly petitioner had worked from 1^st January, 1982 to 1^st September, 1989 and as such after rendering services for about 7/½ years, the amount so determined by the Industrial TribunalLabour Court, Bharatpur, is no relief to the petitioner.

¶20

Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not given any reasons or the formula of computation of back wages in lieu of reinstatement and only a meager sum of Rs 25,000/- has been awarded.

¶21

Counsel places reliance on judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in [2012 (132) FLR 500]; Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Suresh reported in (2015) 4 SCC 542.

¶22

Counsel submitted that the Apex Court in above two mentioned cases granted a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation to the workman and the Apex Court has reiterated the principle that if reinstatement is not given to the workman for any reason, reasonable amount of compensation is required to be paid.

¶23

(3 of 7)

¶24

[CW-15690/2017]

¶25

Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9458/2009 (Shankar Lal Sharma Vs. The Panchayat Samiti and Anr.) decided on 19^th April, 2018.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Dr. A.S. Khangarot, AGC, submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court does not require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submitted that petitioner has raised the dispute after a very long delay and as such he is not entitled for any relief.

¶27

Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. Vs. Gitam Singh reported in (2013) 5 SCC 136 has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only as back wages compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶28

Counsel further places reliance on an order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3815/2010 (SLP (c) No. 13994/2006) Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. , wherein the Court granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/- only to the workman.

¶29

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶30

This Court finds that in earlier round of litigation, this Court vide order dt. 12^th April, 2017, had already decided the issue that the delay cannot be fatal in matter of grant of relief and as such Court had remanded the matter back to the Labour Court with regard to the back wages and reinstatement of the workman. The plea of the State-Employer that the dispute has been raised

¶31

(4 of 7)

¶32

[CW-15690/2017]

¶33

belatedly was already been repelled by this Court vide order dt. 12^th April, 2017.

¶34

The relevant portion of the order dt. 12^th April, 2017 is

¶35

quoted hereunder:-

¶36

“In view of the above, and the position of law which has been decided by this Court in the judgment of Gopal Lal Parashar (Supra), all these writ petitions are allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court is set aside. However, all the matters are referred back to the respective labour Courts to pass appropriate order in light of the judgment passed in Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 6 SCC 82 with regard to back wages and reinstatement.

¶37

The Labour Court shall now pass appropriate orders relating to the relief part within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of the order.”

¶38

This Court finds that the Labour Court while granting the relief to the workman, has abruptly reached to a conclusion that workman is entitled to only Rs. 25,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶39

This Court finds that the Labour Court has passed the award in respect of 22 workmen in mechanical manner, who raised their grievance and all the workmen have been allowed to be given Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

¶40

This Court finds that the petitioner in the instant case has admittedly worked for more than 7/½ years and in some other cases they have worked for a period of not less than 4 years and as such by awarding Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, the relief which was required to be given to the workman, has not been properly determined.

¶41

(5 of 7)

¶42

[CW-15690/2017]

¶43

This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Bharat

¶44

Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs. Man Singh has held that if workman has worked for more than 240 days, the relief of reinstatement was not justified and monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice and accordingly the Apex Court granted Rs. 2,00,000/- to each of the workmen in full and final settlement of their case. This Court further finds that the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Suresh (supra) considered the fact of working of a person-workman for one & a half year for daily wages basis and the Apex Court after considering the fact of working of the employee in a regular manner and unit being closed down, awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. Vs. Gitam Singh (supra) , wherein the Apex Court has recorded a finding that the workman concerned had worked even not for 240 days and the reinstatement was directed by the High Court with continuity in service with 25% of back wages.

¶46

The Apex Court held that the daily wager who had worked for a short period, the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be a proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases can be in-consonance with demand of justice.

¶47

This Court further finds that the Apex Court considering the facts that person has rendered even not more than 240 days of service, granted him compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

¶48

This Court finds that in the instant case, petitioner has worked almost for seven and half years and the formula which is

¶49

(6 of 7)

¶50

[CW-15690/2017]

¶51

sought to be put forward by learned counsel for the respondent, as per the judgment of the Apex Court, cannot be made applicable in the instant case.

¶52

The working of a person for a long period definitely entitles him for a reasonable compensation. The seven and half years period is not a period which can be taken as the service rendered for some short/adhoc period. Instead of reinstatement, he may be granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement & the ends of justice will meet if a reasonable amount is awarded as compensation to the workman.

¶53

This Court finds that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent will not govern case of the petitioner looking to the number of years he has put in service.

¶54

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. (supra) had recorded the fact of working of a workman only for two/three years and instead of granting reinstatement, the monetary compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was given to such workman.

¶55

This Court finds that in the instant case the working of the petitioner is of about 7/½ years and as such the money which has been paid by the Apex Court, the same cannot be made applicable in the instant case.

¶56

This Court has already taken a view that if number of years are put in by the person to work in a Government Organization, he cannot be left high and try by saying that reinstatement is not possible and some petty amount may be given to him. The work of workman/employee in Government Organization/Industry is not a relationship of private employment and once he renders his

¶57

(7 of 7)

¶58

[CW-15690/2017]

¶59

services, he expects that employer, if not grant him reinstatement for any reasons or inevitable situation, he cannot be deprived to get reasonable amount of compensation.

¶60

This Court finds that the Labour Court in a mechanical manner has awarded Rs. 25,000/- to each of the workman without considering their working or tenure. This Court finds that the award which has been passed by the Labour Court is not legally sustainable. The amount so computed as compensation is required to be modified.

¶61

Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the said amount within a period of five weeks, failing which it will carry interest @ 6% per annum till it is actually paid.

¶62

Accordingly the present writ petition stands allowed. The award of the Labour Court dt. 14^th August, 2017, is modified to the extent of granting Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. The said exercise be carried out by the respondents for making payments expeditiously & in no case later than five weeks.

¶63

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶64

Monika

Ramu v. Assistant Engineer PWD

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. Assistant Engineer PWD

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Meena@Topi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohan Lal Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Nitu Sharma Vs Krishan Kumar Sharma

Radheyshyam Vs Assistant Engineer PWD

Kailash Vs Union of India