Allowed

Jagveer Singh v. Labour Court

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024SAW/815/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation for illegal retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, finding the Labour Court failed to consider CPI and wage escalation. The appellate court directed payment of an additional Rs. 2,00,000 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay additional compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- within 3 months.

Jagveer Singh Vs Labour Court — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[2024:RJ-JD:29119-DB]

¶3

[SAW-815/2022]

¶4

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 815/2022

¶6

Jagveer Singh S/o Shri Parmanand Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Through Chairman / Secretary, Van Karamchari Ekta Sangh, Rashmi Village, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Labour Court, Bikaner.

¶10

Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Stage-II, Division-II, Sagar Road, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Tanwar Singh
	Mr. Shaurya PratapSingh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

16/07/2024

¶16

By the Court (Per, Hon’ble Justice Kuldeep Mathur):

¶17

The service upon respondents is complete.

¶18

Though the matter has come up on admission today, however, with the consent of the contesting parties, the instant special appeal (writ) is being heard and decided finally.

¶19

The present D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ has been preferred by the appellant against the Writ Court’s order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18633/2018 dated 12.07.2022, whereby the learned Writ Court has refused to interfere with the award dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Dispute Case No.162/2006 (Jagveer Singh Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forest, State-II, Division-II, Sagar Road, Bikaner).

¶20

[2024:RJ-JD:29119-DB]

¶21

[SAW-815/2022]

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in the month of November, 1987, started working as a daily wager under the control and supervision of Forester and Officer-in-charge, Main Canal Division- II, Unit -IV for plantation work. The appellant, with utmost sincerity and dedication, served uninterruptedly in the respondent-department for more than 240 days, however, the respondent-department without following the mandatory conditions precedent to the valid retrenchment of workmen as envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947), retrenched the appellant w.e.f. 31.12.1990.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that the learned Labour Court in its award dated 16.08.2018 has recorded a finding that there is a clear violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 in the present case. The learned Labour Court after recording a finding in favour of the appellant, instead of ordering reinstatement of the appellant in service, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in his favour.

¶25

Learned counsel contended that retrenchment without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 would be void ab-initio. Such an action would entitle the appellant to a declaration for continuation in service with full back wages. However, in the present case, the learned Labour Court has awarded merely the monetary compensation. At this stage, learned counsel has thus made a limited prayer that the compensation so awarded to the appellant, in lieu of his reinstatement in service, may be enhanced suitably.

¶26

[2024:RJ-JD:29119-DB]

¶27

[SAW-815/2022]

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, on the count that the appellant had worked with respondent-department only for a period of 20 months only and the industrial dispute was raised after a delay of about 15 years without showing any plausible cause or reason for the same. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- so awarded to the appellant, is just and proper, in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and he is not entitled to any enhancement in the compensation. It was thus prayed that the present special appeal may be dismissed and the award dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner may be maintained.

¶30

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at Bar and have perused the relevant documents available on record as well as the impugned award dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner.

¶31

Having gone through the award dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner, we find that the learned Court, in the present case has found retrenchment of the appellant to be in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act of 1947. The award passed by the Labour Court has not been challenged by the respondent-department and it has thus attained finality. We find that while awarding the monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement in favour of the appellant, the learned Labour Court has failed to consider the basic parameters for determination of loss of income viz. increase in minimum wages; consumer price index (CPI); escalation of rates

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:29119-DB]

¶33

[SAW-815/2022]

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

in many a fields; etc. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the same, lest, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the compensation to be awarded to a labour in lieu of reinstatement in service. This Court thus, deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned Labour Court.

¶36

In view of the discussion made hereinabove and in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the present special appeal (writ) is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant- workman in addition to the amount of Rs.2,00,000/which has already been awarded by the learned Labour Court. It is further directed that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the appellant-workman within a period of 3 months from today.

¶37

Accordingly, the present special appeal (writ) is allowed. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶38

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶39

(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J

¶40

114-TarunGoyal/-

Jagveer Singh v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagveer Singh v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Reena Tabiyar

Mahaveer Bishnoi Vs Shri Jitendra Kumar Soni

Giriraj Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Hukma Ram Dudi Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs Gulab Chand Meghwal

The State of Rajasthan Vs Santosh Kumar