Dismissed

Narottam Lal v. Judge Labour Court and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 May 2023CW/8952/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The petitioner sought reinstatement or higher compensation for illegal termination. Upholding the Labour Court's discretion to award lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement for a daily wager engaged for less than a year, the Court found the existing award was just and proper.

What the court decided

AI extract

Narottam Lal Vs Judge Labour Court and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011525]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8952/2012

¶4

Narottam Lal Son Of Shri Chiranji La Soni, aged about 36 years, Resident of Jasrapur, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Judge, Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶8

The Assistant Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Dudu, District, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, Addl. GC

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

19/05/2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) challenging the award dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) in case No: LCR 353/99 whereby the termination of services of the workman has been held to be invalid and the respondents-employer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the employer’) has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

¶15

Counsel for the workman submits that the workman was engaged as daily wager on 01.01.1992 and he worked till 01.10.1992 and without serving any notice or making payment of compensation, his services were terminated on 01.10.1992.

[2023/RJJP/011525]

[CW-8952/2012]

(2 of 6)

Counsel submits that the employer violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that once the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was violation of 25-F of the Act of 1947, then certainly the Labour should have passed directions for reinstatement of the workman but instead of passing such directions, a lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- has been granted as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Counsel submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate directions be issued to the employer to reinstate back the workman in service. In alternative, he made a submission that looking to the length of the service of the workman, the employer be directed to pay adequate amount of compensation. Counsel submits that looking to the length of the service of the workman, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is too meager which is liable to be enhanced by this Court, so appropriate orders may be passed in favour of the workman.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the employer opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the workman and submitted that the workman has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year but he has worked hardly for 184 days. Counsel submits that looking to the length of the service of the workman, the Labour Court has awarded suitable amount of compensation i.e. Rs.50,000/- and the same is just and proper, which needs no interference of this Court.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record.

[2023/RJJP/011525]

[CW-8952/2012]

(3 of 6)

This fact is not in dispute that the workman was engaged as daily wager on 01.01.1992 and he worked till 01.10.1992. This fact has been established by the workman by producing the evidence and after appreciating the same the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the workman has worked for 240 days and the services of the workman have been termination in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is “Whether looking to the length of the service, order passed by the Tribunal is required to be changed, or not?”

¶26

It is settled law decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and if he proves it before the Court by leading evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶27

As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

¶28

In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

[2023/RJJP/011525]

[CW-8952/2012]

(4 of 6)

In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 , it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶33

In BSNL vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 ,

¶34

taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:-

¶35

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

¶36

Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment

[2023/RJJP/011525]

[CW-8952/2012]

(5 of 6)

compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.”

¶41

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para

¶42

Nos.3 and 4 as under:

¶43

“3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be 1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been 2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair.

¶44

Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum

(6 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/011525]

[CW-8952/2012]

compensation to the tune of`2,50,000/(approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.”

¶49

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shafuddin (supra), the petitioner-employer is entitled to get a lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- looking to the length of the services of the workman i.e. with effect from 01.01.1992 till 01.10.1992 and the Labour Court has awarded suitable amount of compensation i.e. Rs.50,000/- looking to the length of his service i.e. less than a year, which is just and proper. Hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶50

I find no error in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.

¶51

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶52

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed.

¶53

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶54

MR/11

Narottam Lal v. Judge Labour Court and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Narottam Lal v. Judge Labour Court and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

District Collector Vs Shri Rajkumar S/O Shri Radhey Shyam

Dharma Chand Jain Vs State Higher Education Depors

Ramnarain Mina Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Saint Meera Brotherhood Society Vs Raj.Non Govt.Edu.Institution Tribunal

Saudan Singh Son of Shri Ramjill Vs Assistant Engineer

Vishweshwar Lal Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.