Dismissed

Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Dy Forest Conservator and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Sept 2020CW/1209/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a Labor Court award of Rs.1 lakh compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Finding the compensation reasonable given the short period of service, the Court held the petition devoid of merit as the petitioner had already accepted the award and received payment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs Dy Forest Conservator and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/2018

¶3

Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Rambabu Sharma, R/o Village Garhi Sawairam, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dy. Forest Conservator, Social Infantry, Forest Department, Manumarg, Alwar.

¶7

Forest Department, Through Van Parsar Adhikari, Bansur, District Alwar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D K Bhardwaj Mr. Kailash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Zakir Hussain, AGC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

08/09/2020

¶13

The petitioner challenges the award dated 19.4.2017 passed by the Judge Labour Court, Bharatpur whereby instead of reinstatement, the petitioner has been awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.1 lakh.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for compensation of Rs.1 lakh could not have been awarded in due of reinstatement.

¶15

This Court finds that the Judge, Labour Court has passed the award in 2017 relating termination of the workman as on 1^st April, 1990. The Judge, Labour Court has also noticed that the petitioner had raised the dispute after 18 months. This Court also finds that the petitioner had worked, as per the findings of the Labour Court

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-1209/2018]

¶18

from 1^st December, 1988 to 31st March, 1990, i.e. for one year and 4 months only. In view thereof, granting compensation of Rs.1 lakh cannot be said to be unreasonable or illegal.

¶19

It is also informed by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner after having filed the writ petition, accepted the amount of compensation by giving his account number to the respondents who have already paid the said amount of Rs.1 lakh and deposited it in his account in the month of March, 2018.

¶20

Keeping in view thereof, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has accepted the award without any demur as this Court finds that no information was given to the court when notices were issued on 6.10.2018 in the present petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the award the amount of Rs.1 lakh would carry interest at the rate of 9% as the same was not paid within a period of 2 months. However, this Court finds that the petitioner has supplied the account number to the respondents in March, 2018 and the amount has also been paid within the said month itself. In view thereof, it cannot be said that there has been delay in payment of Rs.1 lakh.

¶22

The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

SAURABH YADAV/NITIN/75

¶24

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Dy Forest Conservator and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Dy Forest Conservator and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lal Mahich Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shyam Singh Vs Labour Court and Anr.

Kamla Sharan Mishra Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Narainlal S/O Shri Chandanlal

Shri Ram Mongas Narain Vs the Director/ Executive Director (Marketing)

Anita Verma Vs State of Raj