Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA
IQBAL HUSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
JUDGE LABOUR COURT ANDANR – Respondent
No, the judgment is not indicated as having been challenged further.
This is the final order of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) dated 17.11.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 602/2009, which allows the writ petition, quashes the Labour Court's award dated 02.08.2008, declares the termination illegal due to violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and directs reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages (up to the date of the order, with full wages thereafter). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
The order directs immediate compliance, disposes of pending applications, and lists the matter after three months solely for compliance verification, with no reference to any appeal, review, or further challenge. (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman with a challenge to the award dated 02.08.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota in LCR No.46/98 whereby, statement of claim filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not worked for required 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months under the respondent-employer.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the learned Labour Court as regards not working with the respondent-employer continuously for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged termination of the services w.e.f. 01.03.1996 is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record. He further submits that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent-employer as a Pump Driver w.e.f. 08.01.1995 and he worked continuously under the respondent-employer till his verbal termination made on 01.03.1996. He further submits that Up- sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bada Naya Gaon, Panchayat Samiti Hindoli, District Bundi vide order dated 03.02.1996 (Ex.-5) has categorically given a certificate that the petitioner-workman was doing job of Pump Driver from the month of January,
Termination without proper compliance with statutory requirements leads to reinstatement and back wages for unjustly terminated workers.
The court established that non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding termination under the Industrial Disputes Act leads to invalid termination and entitlement to compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus on the workman to establish completion of 240 days in a year and the principles for awarding reinstatement and backwages.
In illegal termination cases involving daily-wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic; compensation and circumstances of employment should be evaluated.
Restoration of employment is mandated when termination is found illegal, unless compelling reasons are provided for denial.
The interpretation of 'continuous service' under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act includes all days worked, and any termination without following due process is deemed illegal.
Reinstatement of daily wage workers is not automatic upon illegal termination; monetary compensation may be awarded instead, particularly when procedural violations occur.
Engagement of workers contrary to government rules results in void appointments; persons not legally appointed cannot claim protections or rights under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Termination of daily wage workers under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not automatically entitle them to reinstatement; monetary compensation may be awarded instead.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
