Division Bench reviewed order dated 15.12.2021 regarding reinstatement versus lump sum compensation. Bench found no error and dismissed review petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJP/010744]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 40/2023
In
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1011/2021
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25112/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
Madan Lal Gurjar S/o Gokul, R/o Village Mehar Ki Dhani Post Gadhi, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Major R.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Aditya Singh Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order
12/05/2023
Heard on application No.87/2023 for condonation of delay in filing of review petition.
Taking into consideration the cause shown in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of review petition. Delay is accordingly condoned.
Application No. 87/2023 is allowed.
Heard on prayer for review of order dated 15.12.2021.
Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the
direction of this Court towards reinstatement instead of lump sum compensation requires review because in almost identical
[2023/RJJP/010744]
[WRW-40/2023]
(2 of 2)
circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan and another Versus Rajendra Singh (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.469/2020, decided on 22.03.2022) did not accede to the prayer for reinstatement, but directed for payment of lump sum compensation only. He would further submit that the order under review proceeds on incorrect legal assumption that in all the cases where violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is established, reinstatement has to necessarily follow, which is not in accord with settled legal position as considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Another Versus Rajendra Singh (Supra).
The order under review has been passed after taking into consideration the factual aspect of the case as also legal position. In order to exercise its discretion as to whether compensation should be awarded or the respondent should be reinstated, this Court has proceeded on settled legal position, particularly taking into consideration that present is a case where it has been found that though the respondent was terminated, persons junior to him were retained in service.
Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record.
The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
SANJAY KUMAWAT-6
The State of Rajasthan and Another
Rajendra Singh
Uma Shanker Vyas
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
