Partly allowed

Iqbal Khan v. Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2018SAW/937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jodhpur dismissed a special appeal filed by a daily wager against an award of enhanced compensation. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal but found no infirmity in the Single Judge's decision to enhance compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal was condoned; the Special Appeal was dismissed in limine.

Iqbal Khan Vs Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 937/2018

¶3

Iqbal Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Yakub, Aged about 34 years, resident of Bakra Mandi, In Front of Hand Pump, New Chand Police Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Labour Court, Jodhpur.

¶7

General Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, S C Road, Anand Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Joshi For Respondent(s) : ---

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

05/10/2018

¶13

Civil Misc. Application No.526/2018:

¶14

Being an appeal filed by a workman, though sufficient cause has not been pleaded in the application seeking 536 days’ delay in filing the appeal to be condoned, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is allowed.

¶15

Special Appeal (Writ) No.937/2018:

¶16

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶17

The appellant was the writ petitioner. He had challenging the award dated 06.01.2011. The award held the termination of appellant’s service to be illegal on account of not complying with Section 25F and 25H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Tribunal did not

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[SAW-937/2018]

¶20

order reinstatement. It compensated the appellant in sum of ₹40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

¶21

Admittedly, the appellant was employed by the second respondent Bank as a daily wager for different periods between 16.11.1999 to 14.09.2002.

¶22

The learned Single Judge has noted various decisions of the Supreme Court where illegal termination of daily wager who had worked for between 2 to 4 years resulted in monetary compensation to be the proper relief.

¶23

Finding that the monetary compensation in sum of ₹40,000/awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate the learned Single Judge has enhanced the same to ₹3.5 lacs. Payment had to be made within three months from the date of the order. If not paid, interest @ 12% per annum has been award.

¶24

Since the learned Single Judge has applied the correct principles of law, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, who has enhanced the compensation vis-avis what was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶25

The appeal is dismissed in limine.

¶26

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶27

Mohit Tak

Iqbal Khan v. Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Khan v. Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

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

Om Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt. Kusum Purohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Food Corporation of India Vs Ladu Ram

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Soma Ram

N. K. Singhvi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Agarwal Dharamshala, Chhani Badi Vs Mahaveer and Ors.