Partly allowed

Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Jhadi v. Madho Lal Sharma and Anr.

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2018SAW/194/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court substituted the Labour Court's award reinstating a retrenched workman with a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. Relying on a coordinate bench's judgment, the court deemed reinstatement disproportionate for a short-term stop-gap engagement, ordering the employer to pay enhanced monetary compensation.

What did the court decide?

Award of the Labour Court affirmed but substituted to award lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. Interest at 9% p.a. if payment delayed.

Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Jhadi Vs Madho Lal… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.194/2018 With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.2288/2018 In

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3138/2001

¶4

Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Jhadisa Limited, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli Through Its Present Chairman Hari Singh Son Of Shri Gangaram Earlier Through Chairman Suresh Chand Sharma

¶5

----Petitioner-Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Madholal Sharma Son Of Shri Inder Lal, Resident Of Village Bishanpura, Post Nangal Bad, Tehsil Todabhim District Karauli.

¶8

Judge Labour Court, Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶11

Order

¶12

16/11/2018

¶13

Petitioner-appellant, Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Jhadisa Limited, has filed this special appeal assailing the judgment/order dated 05.12.2017 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby its writ petition has been dismissed affirming the award dated 28.05.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur, in case No.LCR104/1992 filed by the workman-respondent.

¶14

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the workman-respondent was engaged for the work of salesman at the place of earlier person, namely, Ramesh Chand Shrma. He was engaged on stop gape arrangement on 04.04.1990 till the earlier appointee resumed the work. However, as per the condition, the earlier appointee resumed his work

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[SAW-194/2018]

¶17

on 05.06.1990 and till then and even subsequently due to nepotism of management, the workman-respondent discharged his duty up to 04.02.1991 and subsequently, the services of the workman-respondent were dispensed with by making compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was retrenched from the service after giving one month’s salary in lieu of retrenchment compensation i.e. less than one year work arrangement. The learned Labour Court adjudicated the reference of workman-respondent in terms of reference made by the State Government of retrenchment and passed award in favour of the workman-respondent reinstating him in service with 50% back wages. The petitioner-appellant challenged the same before the learned Single Judge and the same has been affirmed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, in support of the case, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari – (2016) 16 SCC 610 , to argue that reinstatement is not automatic upon finding that retrenchment was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman-respondent in the present case worked only for about ten months, grant of reinstatement without indicating any special reason therefor was not proportionate. He submitted that it would be appropriate that the workman-respondent is paid retrenchment compensation, which this court may deem fit and proper.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are satisfied that the facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.410/2018 – Principal, Rajrishi College, Alwar and Another Vs. Shri Ram Bharosi , decided vide judgment dated 18.07.2018, wherein a coordinate bench of this court substituted the direction of

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[SAW-194/2018]

¶22

reinstatement with 50% of back wages by award of a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). In that case, as per the finding of the Labour Court, the workman had worked for the period from 22.06.1992 to 31.05.1994, thus a total period of about two years. Whereas, in the present case the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the respondent no.1-workman had worked for a total period of about ten months only from 04.04.1990 to 04.02.1991 and that too as a stop gap arrangement. The coordinate bench of this court in Shri Ram Bharosi’s case, supra, while relying on as many as 11 judgments of the Supreme Court, has substituted the direction of reinstatement with 50% back wages with award of lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶23

Considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the respondent no.1-workman had worked for ten months only from 04.04.1990 to 04.02.1991, we are satisfied that ends of justice would meet in case the respondent no.1-workman, instead of his reinstatement with 50% back wages, is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only). Ordered accordingly. In the case the petitioner-appellant failing to pay the lump sum compensation within a period of three months, the workmanrespondent would be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award on such amount. The award of the Labour Court as well as the order of the learned Single Judge is substituted by the aforesaid.

¶24

The special appeal accordingly stands disposed of. This also disposes of the stay application and other applications, if any.

¶25

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶26

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶27

//Jaiman//51

Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Jhadi v. Madho Lal Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Jhadi v. Madho Lal Sharma 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

Gram Vikas Nav Yuvak Mandal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Narayan Lal Raiger S/O Dhannaram Raiger Vs District Collector

Shrimati W/O Prakash Vs Hemlata W/O Vijayveer Singh

Sant Ladhunath Nayak Sewa Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhag Chand Kansotiya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhag Chand Kansotiya Vs State Local Self Dept Ors.