Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1430 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Udai Singh

2015-07-30

AJIT SINGH, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Bench dated 27th January 2004 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner against the award of the Labour Court dated 25th October 2000 directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 50% back wages, has been partly allowed while maintaining reinstatement without any back wages. 2. The respondent-workman was appointed on daily wages with the Sheep & Wool Department, Government of Rajasthan on 01st April 1985. His services were terminated vide order dated 31st March 1988. He raised an industrial dispute in the year 1997 wherein a reference was made to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in 1998. The Labour Court vide award dated 25th October 2000 while holding the termination to be in violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act directed his reinstatement along with 50% back wages from the date wherein he raised the industrial dispute till the date of award. 3. This award was challenged by the appellant-management by preferring S.B.C.W.P. No.1141/2001. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 27th January 2004 modified the award to the extent that the workman shall be reinstated on the same terms and conditions he was employed at the time of his termination, from the date of award i.e. 25th October 2000. This order has been impugned by the appellant-management in the instant appeal. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench and award of the Labour Court to the extent of reinstatement only and instead of reinstatement, compensation which is just and reasonable may be awarded to the respondent, keeping in view the fact that there was delay of 9 years in raising the industrial dispute. He has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota v. Mohan Lal [ (2013) 14 SCC 543 ] as also the decision in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. v. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136 ]. 5. He has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota v. Mohan Lal [ (2013) 14 SCC 543 ] as also the decision in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. v. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136 ]. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that as the termination of the workman is found to be in violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, no interference is called for in the judgment of learned Single Bench. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways [2014 (143) FLR 469] and Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL & another [ AIR 2015 SC 357 ]. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The only question which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the respondent-workman, in the facts and circumstances, is entitled to reinstatement or compensation. 8. We are of the view that there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. 9. It is evident that although services of the respondent-workman were terminated on 31st March 1988, he raised the industrial dispute only after a period of 9 years. The respondent had put in just 3 years of service and he was only a daily wage employee. There is no material on record to indicate that his services were at any time regularized. In such a case where there is a delay of 9 years in raising the dispute and the employee has been working on daily wages, it would be appropriate to grant compensation instead of reinstatement. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer v. Mohan Lal (supra) wherein there was a delay of 6 years in raising the industrial dispute and the workman was a work-charge employee, it was directed that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- be awarded instead of reinstatement. In the case of Gitam Singh (supra), the workman was working on daily wages and he has worked for about 7-8 months and compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded instead of reinstatement. 10. In the case of Gitam Singh (supra), the workman was working on daily wages and he has worked for about 7-8 months and compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded instead of reinstatement. 10. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the instant case. In the case of Raghubir Singh (supra) the delay in raising the dispute was due to the fact that the workman therein was involved in a criminal case and on his acquittal from the criminal court he had preferred the claim. The workman was working as Conductor with the Roadways and hence was a permanent employee. In the case of Tapash Kumar Paul (supra), there was no delay in raising the industrial dispute and no reasons had been assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court while directing compensation instead of reinstatement of the workman. 11. As already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the respondent-workman was working on daily wages and there was no explanation forthcoming on his behalf with regard to delay of 9 years in raising the industrial dispute. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in view of principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Engineer v. Mohan Lal (supra) and Gitam Lal (supra), the respondent-workman who slept over his rights for such a long period is not entitled to claim reinstatement and it would be just and appropriate if he be monetary compensated instead of reinstatement. We are of the view that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice in view of increase in cost of living and respondent/ workman being under litigation since the year 1997. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the order of the learned Single Bench dated 24th January 2004 is modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement the respondent-workman shall be paid compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of two months from now failing which the respondent shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% percent per annum.