Reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of finding a termination illegal. Courts must weigh factors like length of service, nature of employment, and litigation delay to award appropriate monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, especially when dealing with short-term service tenures and significant disputes delays.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8684/2024 is filed with following prayer:-

"(i) The impugned award dated 31.5.2023 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur may kindly be modified and further respondent may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner along with continuity, back wages and all consequential benefits may be extended at par and from the date on which junior person has been granted, along with 9% interest;

(ii) any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner;"

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6780/2024 is filed with following prayer:-

"i) By issuance of suitable Writ, Direction or Order in the nature thereof thereby the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned Award dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur in case LCR No. 113/2005, "Chaggan Vs. Assistant Engineer, PWD." and further pleased to dismiss the statement of claim filed by the respondent in toto.

ii) Any other Order or Direction, which your lordships may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and in the interest of justice."

3. Both the writ petitions are filed aggrieved from award dated 31.05.2023 in LCR No. 113/2005 passed by learned Labour Court, Bharatpur whereby in a reference dated 11.04.2005, the Labour Court after declaring the termination order of workman Chaggan Lal, dated 01.03.1989 as unfair and illegal, has directed the employer to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- within a period of two months and if same is not paid within two months then the employer is required to pay interest @ 7% per annum.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman while placing reliance upon order dated 27.10.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17115/2022 (Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs. President, Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti) has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits along with continuity. He further submits that the workman has rendered more than one year as a daily wager but the Labour Court after declaring the termination as illegal and unfair has not considered the issue of reinstatement. He further submits that the workman is entitled for reinstatement as his juniors were regularized after reinstatement by the employer.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employer and submitted that the statement of claim of the workman indicate that he has worked from 01.01.1988 to 01.03.1989 and after 15 years he raised the dispute. He also submits that Labour Court has not considered that there was no muster roll to reflect that any of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was violated by the employer. He further submits that findings recorded by the Labour Court is contrary to the settled position of law. He further referred the facts and submitted that the workman has worked only for six day in January, 1988 and there is no record to show that the workman has worked for 240 days continuously.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with judgment as referred by learned counsel for the workman.

7. The brief facts of the case are that the workman Chaggan Lal has raised a disput