Allowed

Shri Jagdish Son of Shri Sanwal v. the Urban Improvement Trust

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2026SAW/434/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the workman's appeal against an order setting aside a Labour Court award. Relying on Amit Kumar Dubey, the Court set aside the Single Judge's order and modified the Labour Court award, directing the employer to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement within two months.

Shri Jagdish Son of Shri Sanwal Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:396-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 434/2019

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Review Petition No.17/2019

¶6

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3741/1999

¶8

Shri Jagdish Son Of Shri Sanwal, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Outside B. Narayan Gate, Nathe Ka Nangla,opposite Super Bazar, Bharatpur.

¶9

----Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶12

The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr.	Rajendra Prasad Sharma Sanju Saini Narendra Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	L.L. Gupta
	Mr.	Lakshaya Kumar Sharma
	Mr.	Tanmay Mathur
	Ms.	Pratibha Sharma

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

¶16

07/01/2026

¶17

By way of this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as “Workman”) has challenged the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as “Employer”) was allowed and the award passed by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman dated 21.01.1999 was set-aside.

¶18

Learned counsel for the workman submits that the workman had worked with the respondents for a period of 187 days and

[2026:RJ-JP:396-DB]

[SAW-434/2019]

(2 of 4)

that his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that a finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as none was present on behalf of the workman before the learned Single Judge. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & Anr. (Arising from SLP (Civil) No(s).20902/2024)) along with other connected appeals decided on 29.01.2025 , wherein, para No.9, it has been held as under:-

¶23

“9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, we deem it fit to enhance the compensation granted to the appellants by the High Court. We hold that the appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs per year for the period they have worked and in case, they have worked for a part of the year, then the amount of compensation is to be calculated at the same rate to be applied on a pro-rata basis.The following table represents the period of service rendered by each of the appellant and accordingly, the amount of compensation each of them shall be entitled to in terms of the above directions:

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:396-DB]

[SAW-434/2019]

He further submits that the reasonable compensation be awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶28

Learned counsel for the employer has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the workman.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

This appeal is allowed in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Dubey (supra) . The order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set-aside and the award passed by the

[SAW-434/2019]

[2026:RJ-JP:396-DB]

(4 of 4)

learned Labour Court stands modified, accordingly. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the workman within a period of two months from today.

¶35

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶36

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶37

Upendra Pratap Singh /50

Shri Jagdish Son of Shri Sanwal v. the Urban Improvement Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Jagdish Son of Shri Sanwal v. the Urban Improvement Trust

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

Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited Vs Ramnath Saini S/O Sh. Mali Ram Saini

Rajesh Bishnoi S/O Barsingha Ram Vs Union of India

Sanjay Chouhan S/O Sh. Vijay Babu Vs the Union of India

Jamna Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Brij Lal Sharma Vs Chairman

Tej Singh Dhabhai S/O Late Sundar Lal Dhabhai Vs Registrar General

Rajendra Singh Samota S/O Shri Roopa Ram Choudhary Vs Rajasthan High Court