Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 182 (RAJ)

Dy Conservator of Forests v. Ramavtar

2025-02-03

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2025
Order : 1. Instant petition has been filed by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) challenging the award dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in LCR No.49/2006 wherein the termination order of the respondent dated 01.04.1994 has been quashed and set aside and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate him back in service with continuity along with 15% back wages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman has hardly worked with the petitioner-department for 213 days but this fact was not appreciated by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. Counsel submits that though the affidavits of two witnesses namely Jaikishan Jat & Nathuram were submitted on the record in this regard but these witnesses could not appear before the Tribunal. Hence, under these circumstances, these witnesses could not be examined by the petitioner due to their absence and the evidence of the petitioner was closed, and thus their affidavits were not read in evidence. 3. Counsel submits that even otherwise also looking to the length of the service of the workman i.e. one year and two months with effect from 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994, the Labour Court could have granted him a lumpsum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the workman established on the record that he worked with the petitioner-department with effect from 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994 i.e. more than 240 days in a calendar year, but without serving any notice, his services were terminated and he was not paid any amount of compensation. It was pleaded in the petition that services of the workman were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1947’). Hence, under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned award. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager for a particular time whereby he worked with the petitioner-department with effect from 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager for a particular time whereby he worked with the petitioner-department with effect from 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994. This fact is not in dispute that the affidavits of two witnesses namely Jaikishan Jat & Nathuram were submitted by the respondent in support of contention that the workman has not worked with the petitioner-department for more than 240 days in a calendar year but these witnesses could not appear for the purpose of their examination, hence, their affidavits were not read in evidence. Hence, under these circumstances, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman has worked with the petitioner-department for more than 240 days. 7. It is settled law, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 , and if he proves it before the Court by leading evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947 , then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 8. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 9. In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 10. 9. In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 10. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 , it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 11. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal , reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 ). Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 ). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.” 12. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be `1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been Rs.2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be Rs.3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of`2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.” 13. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra) , this Court is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. This Court could have remanded the matter back for the purpose of cross-examination of these witnesses but looking to the fact that the matter remain pending before the Labour Court since last more than 29 years and looking to the fact that the reinstatement is not a thumb of rule the adequate amount of compensation shall been granted to the workman. 14. Looking to the fact that the workman has rendered his services with the employer for a period of more than one year that is w.e.f. 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994, the workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 15. Accordingly, the employer is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman as compensation as observed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the amount is not paid to the workman within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the workman would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual realization. 16. The award of the Labour Court dated 05.07.2017 stands modified in the above terms. 17. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. 18. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.