Allowed

Ajmer Singh v. Deputy Director

Rajasthan HC15 May 2023SAW/1528/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the D.B. Special Appeal, holding that the Single Judge's award of Rs.1 lakh for illegal termination under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was inadequate. Relying on Division Bench precedents, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5 lakh per appellant with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.5,00,000 to each appellant awarded; interest at 6% p.a. from 26.08.2019; 12% penalty interest if not paid within five weeks.

Ajmer Singh Vs Deputy Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010891]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1528/2019

¶4

Ajmer Singh, (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs - 2. Shanti Devi W/o Late Sh. Ajmer Singh, Resident Of Dandoli, Tehsil And District Dholpur.

¶5

Mahesh Kumar Son Of Late Sh. Ajmer Singh, Resident Of Dandoli, Tehsil And District Dholpur.

¶6

Sajjan Singh Son Of Late Sh. Ajmer Singh, Resident Of Dandoli, Tehsil And District Dholpur.

¶7

Bantu Singh Son Of Late Sh. Ajmer Singh, Resident Of Dandoli, Tehsil And District Dholpur.

¶8

Shriniwas Son Of Late Sh. Ajmer Singh, Minor Through Their Mother And Natural Guardian Shanti Devi, Resident Of Dandoli, Tehsil And District Dholpur.

¶9

Seema D/o Late Sh. Ajmer Singh, Minor Through Their Mother And Natural Guardian Shanti Devi, Resident Of Dandoli, Tehsil And District Dholpur.

¶10

Pooja D/o Late Sh. Ajmer Singh, Minor Through Their Mother And Natural Guardian Shanti Devi, Resident Of Dandoli, Tehsil And District Dholpur.

¶11

Jagdish Prasad S/o Of Shri Pataria, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Dayeri, Post Chothpura, District Dholpur.

¶12

----Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Deputy Director, Education And Principal District Education And Training Centre, Dholpur.

¶15

Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr.CL Saini, AAG

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order

15/05/2023

[2023/RJJP/010891]

[SAW-1528/2019]

(2 of 8)

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 26^th August, 2019, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the order passed by the Labour Court dated 13^th March, 2008 has been found to be erroneous and the Court directed the employer to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/to each of the appellants in lieu of services discharged by them on account of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”) . Learned Single Judge also found the appellants to be entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award dated 13^th March, 2008.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants – Mr.Suresh Kashyap submitted that the appellants Mr.Ajmer Singh and Mr.Jagdish Prasad had worked with the employer w.e.f. 01^st May, 1994 and their services came to be terminated on 01^st April, 1998.

¶26

Learned counsel submitted that against termination of services, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court and the Labour Court by award dated 13^th March, 2008, came to the conclusion that services of the employees-appellants were terminated in rightful manner, as they worked on a contract basis and as such, as per the conditions of contract, the services came to an end.

¶27

Learned counsel submitted that the said award dated 13^th March, 2008 was put to challenge by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.12010/2008 (Ajmer Singh (since deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur & Anr.) .

¶28

Learned counsels submitted that learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts and law on the subject, came to conclusion that services of the appellants were not terminated in a

[2023/RJJP/010891]

[SAW-1528/2019]

(3 of 8)

proper manner, as they had completed more than 240 days before the date of their termination and the employer did not follow the mandatory provisions of protection given under Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that finding of learned Single Judge has been recorded to the extent of not receiving any notice or any amount in lieu of the notice to the appellants and the same being in clear violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, as such, termination was declared illegal by learned Single Judge.

¶34

Learned counsel submitted that however instead of passing an order of reinstatement in favour of the appellants, learned Single Judge granted a meager amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to both the original petitioners.

¶35

Learned counsel further submitted that as far as the respondent State is concerned, it has not challenged findings of learned Single Judge in respect of wrongful termination of the appellants and as such, the employer was bound to reinstate the present appellants back in service.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat (Civil Appeal No.6890/2022) , decided on 23^rd September, 2022 has held that if services of the workman is terminated illegally, reinstatement is a normal relief and compensation is no solace, where illegal retrenchment has been made.

¶37

Learned counsel also submitted that if, at all, some compensation was to be awarded to the appellants, the amount of

[2023/RJJP/010891]

[SAW-1528/2019]

(4 of 8)

Rs.1,00,000/- is too meager and the same cannot substitute the reinstatement, for which, the appellants were entitled on account of their illegal retrenchment by the respondent-employer.

¶42

Learned counsel further places reliance on a judgment, passed by the Division Bench in the case of Secretary, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. Vs.Ram Swaroop & Anr. (DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.15/2018), decided on 05^th September, 2018, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has granted lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest to the workman therein.

¶43

On the strength of said judgment, learned counsel submitted that the appellants’ right of reinstatement was required to be enforced by learned Single Judge and if, at all, compensation was required to be paid, reasonable amount ought to have been awarded.

¶44

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General – Mr.CL Saini, appearing for the respondents, has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai [(2019) 4 SCC 307].

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that while deciding the writ petition, learned Single Judge directed to pay compensation instead of reinstatement in respect of termination/retrenchment to the appellants, as they did not work on regular post and were not appointed through regular mode of selection.

¶46

Learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Senior Medical Officer/In-charge

[2023/RJJP/010891]

[SAW-1528/2019]

(5 of 8)

Hospital Vs. Shri Gangaram (DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.2033/2017), while deciding the appeal on 18^th July, 2019, has also awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondentworkman therein and as such, if this Court is to consider the relevant law then amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, as lump sum compensation, at the most, can be awarded, as per the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Senior Medical Officer/In-charge Hospital (supra).

¶51

Learned counsel further submitted that as far as reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (supra) is concerned, the same will not be applicable in the present case, as the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, had recorded a finding that there were as many as 63 labourers working with the management and they were admittedly junior to the appellant therein.

¶52

Learned counsel submitted that said judgment was passed on the facts of the case and as such, it does not lay down a general preposition of law in respect of reinstatement of service and only remedy to be granted by the Court where termination is found illegal.

¶53

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material, available on record.

¶54

We have gone through the order passed by learned Single Judge and find that as far as retrenchment/termination of the appellants is concerned, the same has not been found in consonance with the requirement of law, i.e., compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

[2023/RJJP/010891]

[SAW-1528/2019]

(6 of 8)

We find that learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that no notice, prior to the termination of service of the appellants, was neither given nor any compensation was paid to them.

¶59

This Court also approves finding of learned Single Judge that the respondent-employer was guilty of violating the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

¶60

We further find that the State-employer has not challenged the findings of learned Single Judge in respect of illegal termination of services of the appellants.

¶61

We find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellants is not a proper relief, which has been granted by learned Single Judge. We find that working of the appellants was for almost 4 years and further, they were terminated from service in the year 1998.

¶62

We further find that initially the reference was made to the Labour Court in respect of illegal retrenchment and an award was passed on 13^th March, 2008, wherein no relief was granted to the appellants and retrenchment was found in order.

¶63

We find that claim of the present appellants came to be settled only by way of the order passed by learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 26^th August, 2019.

¶64

This Court, considering the important aspect of the matter that the award was not passed in favour of the appellants by the Labour Court, deems it proper to hold that adequate compensation was an appropriate relief, which could be granted to the appellants.

[2023/RJJP/010891]

[SAW-1528/2019]

(7 of 8)

This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (supra) has recorded its finding that several junior persons were working with the employer therein and further, the claim, which was raised before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, came to be allowed in favour of the workmen and accordingly, the Apex Court, considering all these facts, including working of about 10 years’ service of workmen, allowed the claim of reinstatement instead of backwages/compensation.

¶69

We find that the said judgment will be of little help to learned counsel for the appellants as far as relief of reinstatement in service, is concerned.

¶70

We have gone through the judgments passed by the Division Bench in the case of Senior Medical Officer/In-charge Hospital (supra) and Secretary, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. (supra) and find that the Division Bench in these two cases have awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the workmen instead of their reinstatement in service.

¶71

We, while following the orders passed by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases, also hold that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, as has been awarded by learned Single Judge, is not adequate and proper compensation may be paid to the appellants.

¶72

We have also been informed that during pendency of the litigation, one of the original petitioner – Mr.Ajmer Singh has expired and he is represented through his representatives, i.e., his wife and children.

[2023/RJJP/010891]

[SAW-1528/2019]

(8 of 8)

We, therefore, hold that the order of learned Single Judge, to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, to the appellants, is required to be modified.

¶77

Accordingly, considering the fact that the appellants had worked for almost four years and their services were terminated way back in 1998, we deem it proper to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of the appellants (legal heirs of the appellant No.1 – Ajmer Singh and the appellant – Mr.Jagdish Prasad).

¶78

Ordered accordingly.

¶79

The enhanced amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be paid to both the appellants within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellants will also be entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order of learned Single Judge, i.e., 26^th August, 2019.

¶80

It is made clear that if the amount, so determined by this Court along with interest is not paid within the period given above, i.e. five weeks, the respondents would be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the due amount w.e.f. 26^th August, 2019.

¶81

With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal stands allowed.

¶82

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶83

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶84

Preeti Asopa /134

Ajmer Singh v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmer Singh v. Deputy Director

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

Mahesh Gupta S/O Late Sh. A.K. Gupta, Vs Nirmal Nagori

Smt. Prem Bai W/O Ashok Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Manisha R.A.S. Vs Advocate Umesh Kumar Gaur R/828/1993

Commissioner, Department of College Education, Vs Educom Solutions Private Limited

Shree Krishna Vatika Homes LLP Vs Shri Indra Vijay Singh S/O Col. Shri Govind Singh Ji

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Govt. Education Department Vs Shishpal S/O Munshi Ram