Reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of an illegal termination. In cases involving short-duration, project-based employment, courts may opt to award monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement based on factors like the nature of the appointment and duration of service.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Aggrieved from denial of relief of reinstatement while passing award dated 20.08.2024 in LCR Case No.45/2007 (CIS No.734/2019) by the Labour Court-First, Jaipur, the instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner-workman with following prayer:-

"1. The impugned award dated 20.08.2024 passed by Ld. Labour Court First, Jaipur in Case No. L.C.R. 45/2007 (C.I.S. NO. 734/2019) titled as Bajrang Versus Registrar & Anr., may kindly be modified and the statement of claim filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in toto and the petitioner may kindly be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits in place of the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Ld. Labour Court for the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

2. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 29.03.2004 and the petitioner has joined on 01.04.2004, but on 02.03.2005, the petitioner was forced to resign and his services were discontinued thereafter. He further submitted that the petitioner has raised a Labour dispute and the Labour Court while declaring termination order 07.03.2005 as illegal and unfair, has granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of reinstatement. He also referred award dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Labour Court in LCR Case No.99/2006 in case of similarly situated Om Prakash Raigar and submitted that after declaring termination order dated 03.03.2005 as unfair and illegal, has directed reinstatement of Om Prakash (supra).

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and he submitted that the respondents have not challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, but the material placed on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was only engaged for shorter duration for a specific project and the petitioner has no right to continue. He further referred the affidavit filed by Sharad Bhargava on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any kind of reinstatement. He submitted that the claim of the petitioner on post of short duration is not maintainable.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked from 01.04.2004 to 02.03.2005 and his order of termination dated 07.03.2005 was declared as unfair and illegal by the Labour Court - First, in LCR No. 45/2007 (CIS No.734/2019). Instead of reinstatement, the petitioner was granted lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

6. Identically placed person Om Prakash has also challenged termination dated 03.03.2005 by raising an industrial dispute and same was considered by Labour Court in LCR Case No. 99/2006, and in award dated 21.03.2017, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of Om Prakash. We are not aware whether the award in case of Om Prakash is challenged or not, but the material available in the instant case indicate that the petitioner Bajrang Lal was appointed as Animal Attendant in UGC Programme of Special Assistance. The selection and the appointment dated 29.03.2004 indicate that it was purely on temporary basis. the appointment order indicate that initially it was for three months and later it was extended. Thus, the appointment is only for a shorter duration and that too under a project, therefore, the petitioner cannot be claimed reinstatement