SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1571

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
General Manager/factory Manager, Shree Cement Ltd. - Petitioner 
Versus 
Anil, Son Of Shri Rehman – Respondent 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2920 of 2025 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9589 of 2017, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9590 Of 2017, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9591 Of 2017, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11085 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11872 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11875 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11876 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11876 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12221 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12231 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12816 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18079 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18355 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20084 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20696 Of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2921 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2922 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2923 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2924 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2927 Of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2928 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2931 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2932 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2933 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2934 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2940 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2946 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Alok Chaturvedi
For the Respondent: Mr. Dharmendra Jain, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Mr. Mohit Kawatra.

Reinstatement of workmen is not automatic; courts can award monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement based on service length and circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(c)(2) - Writ petitions challenging Labour Court awards - Termination of workmen quashed with reinstatement and back-wages ordered - Petitioner-company seeks to settle with lump-sum compensation instead of reinstatement - Court recognizes that reinstatement is not automatic and can be substituted with compensation based on service length - Court awards Rs.10,00,000/- to each workman in lieu of reinstatement. (Paras 2, 9, 16, 17)

(B) Reinstatement and Compensation - The principle that reinstatement is not a rule of thumb is affirmed, allowing for monetary compensation instead, especially in cases of long-pending disputes. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-company challenged Labour Court awards that quashed the termination of workmen, directing reinstatement with back-wages. Some cases were settled with lump-sum compensation. The workmen argued for reinstatement based on their long service.

Findings of Court:
The Court deemed it just to award Rs.10,00,000/- to each workman as full and final settlement in lieu of reinstatement, considering the long duration since termination and previous settlements.

Issues: The main issues were whether reinstatement should be granted or if compensation could suffice, and the adequacy of the compensation amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that reinstatement is not automatic and can be replaced by compensation, especially when significant time has passed since termination. The amount awarded reflects the workmen's long service and inflation.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with modification of the impugned order.

Order :

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.)

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties arguments have been heard and all these writ petitions are decided by this common order.

2. Challenge has been made by the petitioner-company to the awards passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court”) by which the statements of claim submitted by the respondents-workmen (hereinafter referred to as “workmen”) have been allowed and their termination orders have been quashed and set-aside with direction to the petitioner- company to reinstate them in service along-with 40% back-wages.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid awards passed by the Labour Court, these writ petitions have been preferred in the year 2017- 2018 wherein by way of passing an interim order in some of the writ petitions, the orders of back-wages have been stayed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that during pendency of these writ petitions, applications under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) were submitted before the Labour Court and the same were allowed and the petitioner-company has been directed to pay the amount as determined by the Labour Court to the workmen. Those cases are also listed along-with the bunch of writ petitions, where the award passed by the Labour Court, quashing the termination, has been challenged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that all the workmen were engaged on different posts in the petitioner- Company, when their services were terminated, thereafter they approached the Labour Court by way of filing their statements of claim. Learned counsel submits that the statements of claim submitted by such workmen were allowed and their termination orders were quashed and set-aside with direction to the petitioner-coporation to reinstate all of them in service with back- wages. Learned counsel submits that in some of the matters i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition bearing Nos.9588/2017, 11617/2018, 12267/2018, 12225/2018, 1642/2018, 12227/2018 & 12765/2018, compromise has been arrived at between the parties and such matters were settled out of the Court. Learned counsel submits that looking to the long service rendered by these workmen, the matter was settled by granting them lumpsum amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5.50/6 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner- company is ready to settle the dispute with each workman, provided these matters are disposed of by granting suitable amount of compensation to them in lieu of reinstatement.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the workmen opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-company and submitted that all the workmen have discharged their duties for a considerable time i.e. for more than 10 years, hence, looking to their length of service, they all are entitled to be reinstated in service and they are also entitled to get the back-wages, as awarded to them by the Labour Court. Learned counsel submits that after passing of the award by the Labour Court, the same has been assailed by the petitioner-company before this Court where applications under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 were submitted and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen, Hindustan V.O. Corporation Ltd. Versus Hindustan Veg. Oils Corporation Ltd. & others reported in 2000 (86) FLR 804, such applications are liable to be disposed of expeditiously, prior to disposal of the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that in these writ petitions, the application filed by the workmen under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 are still pending consideration, hence, such applications are required to be decided first.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

7. Perusal of the record indicate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top