Partly allowed

Superintending Engineer Public Works Department v. Shri Shyoji Ram Kumavat Son of Shri Chhignaram

Rajasthan HC20 Jan 2023CW/99/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified the Labour Court award, holding that an employee with one year of service is not entitled to reinstatement upon violation of layoff provisions but only deserves adequate compensation.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to grant respondent employment lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of reinstatement.

Superintending Engineer Public Works… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 99/2019

¶3

Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Rural Circle I Jaipur.

¶4

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Rural Division I Jaipur.

¶5

Assistant Engineer Public Works Department, Sub Division Phulera Jaipur

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Shyoji Ram Kumavat Son Of Shri Chhignaram, Resident Of Sushilpura C/o Shri M.f. Baig 15 Anand Colony Third Govind Nagar (East) Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Dr.V.B.Sharma, AAG with Mr.Prakhar
	Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.M.F.Baig, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶12

Order

¶13

20/01/2023

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitionersemployer challenging the award dated 28.09.2018 passed by Labour Court – 1, Jaipur, whereby the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent-employee with continuity in service without any back wages.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the instant case, the respondent-employee has not completed 240 days prior to the date of alleged termination of his services on 31.07.1988.

¶16

(2 of 7) [CW-99/2019]

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the computation done by the Labour Court for calculating 240 days in a calendar year, prior to termination of services, has also not been made properly, as the respondent had worked only for 199.5 days.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the dispute was raised by the respondent-employee after inordinate delay of 17 years and as such the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, is wholly unjustified.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that if assuming though not admitting, the respondent-employee had worked for 240 days in a preceding 12 months period from the date of his alleged termination, even then the order of reinstatement with continuity of service, is not justified and the same is against the principle laid down by the Apex Court from time to time.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that such short duration of working of an employee does not automatically result into reinstatement after services are disposed of by the petitioners-employer for justified reasons.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Apex Court as well as this Court, in catena of cases, has laid down the principle that an employee, who has rendered services for a shorter period, should not be given an order of reinstatement and in a given case, a lump-sum compensation will be given as adequate relief to such an employee.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to order dated 25.04.2018 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16654/2017 (Net Ram Vs. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department) and the same order being approved by the

¶23

(3 of 7)

¶24

[CW-99/2019]

¶25

Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.973/2018 dated 25.02.2019.

¶26

Learned counsel, on the strength of the said judgment, submitted that the Tribunal in that case, had granted the benefit of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and this Court maintained the order of compensation, but the same was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohan Lal reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543 , has laid down the law that the dispute, which is raised after inordinate delay and person has worked for a limited period, can be adequately compensated by payment of lump-sum amount in lieu of compensation.

¶28

Learned counsel, on the strength of the said judgment, submitted that in the instant case, once the findings in respect of working of the employee was recorded from 01.08.1987 to 31.07.1988, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by giving the benefit of continuity in service to the respondentemployee.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that findings, which have been recorded by the Labour Court with respect to working of the respondent-employee, may not be interfered by this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel submitted that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, reappreciation of evidence may not be done by this Court and as such the award passed by the Labour Court need not to be interfered.

¶31

(4 of 7) [CW-99/2019]

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent-employee further submitted that in the instant case, working of the respondentemployee was amply proved for 240 days from the date of termination of his services and if there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, necessary consequences were to follow and accordingly, the Labour Court has passed the award in favour of the respondent-employee.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as far as delay in raising the dispute is concerned, it is the sole prerogative of the State to make the reference and the workman concerned could not have approached the Labour Court directly without undergoing the conciliation proceedings.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Labour Court while passing the award has not granted any back wages to the respondent-employee and relief has already been suitably modified and as such no error can be found in the award passed by the Labour Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that in case, this Court is inclined to interfere in the award passed by the Labour Court, adequate lump-sum compensation is required to be paid to the respondent-employee.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent refers to a judgment passed by the Division Bench in D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.202/2019 (Shri Gopal Singh Vs. Judge Labour Court 1^st & Ors.) and another connected writ petition decided on 17.10.2019, wherein the Division Bench modified the award by giving lump-sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the workman.

¶37

(5 of 7)

¶38

[CW-99/2019]

¶39

Learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench has also considered the working of that employee only for a period of one year and still Rs.3,00,000/- was given as lump-sum amount.

¶40

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

¶41

This Court finds that the Labour Court while recording the evidence with respect to working of the respondent-employee has come to the conclusion that the respondent-employee had worked for 240 days and as such he was entitled to be protected by way of notice and adequate compensation in lieu of notice and as such Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been found to be violated by the petitioners-employer.

¶42

This Court, considering the findings recorded by the Labour Court, does not intend to interfere in such findings of fact and as such the award cannot be violated on the ground of not considering the actual working of the respondent-employee for 240 days.

¶43

This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the award to the extent of reinstatement of the respondent-employee is not proper and only on account of working for a year, the automatic result would not be reinstatement but adequate compensation can be better while giving relief to the respondent-employee.

¶44

This Court finds that the Apex Court as well as this Court has been taking a consistent view that short duration of working of an employee will not automatic result into his reinstatement, when termination of such an employee takes place.

¶45

This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of

¶46

Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing

¶47

(6 of 7) [CW-99/2019]

¶48

Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohan Lal (supra) has also taken a similar view.

¶49

This Court also finds that the case of Net Ram Vs. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench, wherein lump-sum compensation has been found to be a better way of giving relief to the employee instead of reinstatement.

¶50

The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that once the retrenchment order is bad and the same is passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, as such reinstatement is the only relief, which can be granted, this Court is afraid to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

¶51

This Court, in the facts of the present case, finds that the respondent-employee has worked from 01.08.1987 to 31.07.1988 and as such for rendering about one year of service, reinstatement should not have been the relief, which has been granted by the Labour Court.

¶52

This Court further finds that the delay which occurred in making the reference to the Labour Court has also been taken care of by the Labour Court as no back wages has been awarded in favour of the respondent-employee and as such on this ground, the award passed by the Labour Court, cannot be faulted.

¶53

This Court, in the present facts of the case, finds that the award passed by the Labour Court needs be modified and the respondent-employer instead of reinstatement, will be entitled for a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation.

¶54

This Court disposes of the present writ petition and accordingly modifies the award dated 28.09.2018, and the

¶55

(7 of 7) [CW-99/2019]

¶56

respondent-employee is held entitled for lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of reinstatement. This Court directs that the aforesaid amount will be paid to the respondent-employee within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶57

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶58

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶59

Monika/38

Superintending Engineer Public Works Department v. Shri Shyoji Ram Kumavat Son of Shri Chhignaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Superintending Engineer Public Works Department v. Shri Shyoji Ram Kumavat Son of Shri Chhignaram

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

Smt Rajesh Nehra D/O Shri Maturam Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gopesh Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanheya Lal Chandoliya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramniwas S/O Shri Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Muzammil Sayeed S/O Dr. Mohd. Sayeed Vs Sarokar Sansthan

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Vs Inspireone Technologies Private Limited