1. Writ petitions challenging Labour Court awards on termination of workers engaged under a training scheme, raising issues of workman status and illegal retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 24 , 31 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Ram Kishan S/o Sharvan Lal Khumhar – Appellant
Versus
Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jaipur – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5642, 5941, 5942, 5943, 5944, 5946, 7038, 9015, 9016, 9017, 9018, 9020, 9026, 9029, 9062, 9063, 9093, 9094, 9095, 9123, 9125, 9165, 9166, 9402, 9445, 9469, 9509 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5740, 6083, 6084, 7164 of 2022
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Important Points
The status of a 'workman' is determined by actual duties rather than designation. While substantial delay in raising a dispute doesn't bar a claim, it precludes reinstatement in short-term employments, making monetary compensation the appropriate legal remedy.
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Definition of 'workman' - Inclusion of apprentices - Termination of services - Compliance with Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H - Where the employer fails to produce documentary evidence or the specific training scheme to prove that engagement was purely for training, and where payment records indicate work was performed, the finding of the Labour Court treating trainees as workmen cannot be termed perverse or illegal (Paras 23, 24, 33).
(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Delay in raising dispute - No limitation period is prescribed for raising a dispute before the Conciliation Officer - While a claim cannot be defeated solely on the ground of delay, such delay affects the entitlement to reinstatement - In cases of substantial delay and short-term employment, reinstatement is not an automatic relief and lump sum compensation is the appropriate remedy (Paras 16, 19, 20, 36).
(C) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Scope of interference with Labour Court awards - The court cannot interfere with a judgment passed by the Labour Court unless there is patent illegality or perversity - The court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view simply because another possible view exists (Paras 21, 34).
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed by both an employer (a government department) and several workmen challenging the awards passed by the Labour Court. The employer contended that the individuals were engaged as trainees under a rural youth self-employment scheme and did not fall under the definition of 'workman'. The Labour Court had held that the terminations were unfair and illegal for non-compliance with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, awarding a nominal compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the definition of 'workman' explicitly includes apprentices. Since the employer failed to provide the training scheme or evidence proving the applicants were merely interns without responsibility, the Labour Court's factual findings were upheld. Because the engagement was short-term (less than one year) and there was substantial delay in raising the dispute, the court held that reinstatement was not appropriate, but the compensation should be enhanced.
Issues: (i) Whether trainees engaged under a self-employment scheme fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (ii) Whether a substantial delay of several years in raising a labour dispute bars the claim of the workmen. (iii) Whether reinstatement or monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy in cases of short-term employment with significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The status of a person as a 'workman' is determined by a duty-based test rather than designation. When the employer fails to prove that an apprentice's engagement was strictly for training, they are treated as workmen. Although the Industrial Disputes Act has no limitation period, the combination of short-term service and delay in filing justifies the award of lump sum compensation over reinstatement.
Result: Writ petitions filed by the employer are dismissed; writ petitions filed by the workmen are partly allowed, with compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 per person.
(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Delay in raising dispute - No limitation period is prescribed for raising a dispute before the Conciliation Officer - While a claim cannot be defeated solely on the ground of delay, such delay affects the entitlement to reinstatement - In cases of substantial delay and short-term employment, reinstatement is not an automatic relief and lump sum compensation is the appropriate remedy (Paras 16, 19, 20, 36).
(C) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Scope of interference with Labour Court awards - The court cannot interfere with a judgment passed by the Labour Court unless there is patent illegality or perversity - The court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view simply because another possible view exists (Paras 21, 34).
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed by both an employer (a government department) and several workmen challenging the awards passed by the Labour Court. The employer contended that the individuals were engaged as trainees under a rural youth self-employment scheme and did not fall under the definition of 'workman'. The Labour Court had held that the terminations were unfair and illegal for non-compliance with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, awarding a nominal compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the definition of 'workman' explicitly includes apprentices. Since the employer failed to provide the training scheme or evidence proving the applicants were merely interns without responsibility, the Labour Court's factual findings were upheld. Because the engagement was short-term (less than one year) and there was substantial delay in raising the dispute, the court held that reinstatement was not appropriate, but the compensation should be enhanced.
Issues: (i) Whether trainees engaged under a self-employment scheme fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (ii) Whether a substantial delay of several years in raising a labour dispute bars the claim of the workmen. (iii) Whether reinstatement or monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy in cases of short-term employment with significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The status of a person as a 'workman' is determined by a duty-based test rather than designation. When the employer fails to prove that an apprentice's engagement was strictly for training, they are treated as workmen. Although the Industrial Disputes Act has no limitation period, the combination of short-term service and delay in filing justifies the award of lump sum compensation over reinstatement.
Result: Writ petitions filed by the employer are dismissed; writ petitions filed by the workmen are partly allowed, with compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 per person.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- remedies
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Naina Saraf
For the Respondents: Minakshi Jain, Supriya Sharma, Manoj Sharma, Abhishek Sharma, Pooja Sharma
For the Appellant : Naina Saraf
For the Respondents: Minakshi Jain, Supriya Sharma, Manoj Sharma, Abhishek Sharma, Pooja Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Workmen claimed reinstatement for violation of Sections 25F, 25G, 25H; employer denied employer-employee relationship, asserting trainees under TRYSEM scheme, and challenged award. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Delay alone does not defeat claims; no limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act. Labour Court findings based on evidence; employer failed to prove trainee status; reinstatement not automatic for short engagements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 )
4. For short-term employment with delayed dispute, compensation rather than reinstatement is appropriate; rate per annum may be granted considering service length. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
5. Employer writ petitions dismissed; workmen writ petitions partly allowed with enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000 each, payable within 90 days, with interest at 9% thereafter. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
6. Is delay in raising an industrial dispute a bar to adjudication?
No limitation period is prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for raising a dispute; delay alone cannot defeat a claim, but it affects the relief of reinstatement. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Does an apprentice trainee fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s)?
The definition includes apprentices; however, status depends on actual duties performed. If trainees perform regular work without trainers, they may be considered workmen. (Para 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
8. Is reinstatement automatic upon finding illegal termination?
No, reinstatement is not automatic; for short-term engagements or delayed disputes, monetary compensation may be granted instead. The court may award compensation per annum of service. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
9. Can a High Court interfere with Labour Court findings under Articles 226/227?
Only on grounds of patent illegality or perversity; the court cannot re-appreciate evidence if a reasonable view exists. (Para 21 , 33 , 34 )
10. Who bears the burden to prove the relationship of employer and employee?
Once the workman presents evidence of engagement and payment, the employer must disprove the relationship, especially when asserting trainee status, by producing relevant documents. (Para 32 , 33 )
ORDER :
1. Defects pointed out in some files are ignored and overrurled.
2. All these writ petitions were filed against the award passed by the Labour Court in different LCR matters on a reference made by the Labour Department. Since the issue is identical and similar, therefore, we are disposing of these writ petitions by a common order.
3. These writ petitions were filed with the following prayers:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5462/2021:
(a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 4.3.2021 passed by learned tribunal and labour court, Jaipur in LCR no.269/2017 (old no. 88/2013) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding compensation of RS.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement of petitioner in services and the respondent may be directed to reinstate petitioner in services with continuity with full of back wages with all consequential benefits.
(b) The petitioner be also granted all the benefits alongwith 24% interest.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5941/2021:
(a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 4.3.2021 passed by learned tribunal and labour court, Jaipur in LCR no.270/2017 (old no. 89/2013) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement of petitioner in services and the respondent may be directed to reinstate petitioner in services with continuity with full of back wages with all consequential benefits.
(b) The petitioner be also granted all the benefits alongwith 24% interest.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5942/2021:
(a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 4.3.2021 passed by learned tribunal and labour court, Jaipur in LCR no.307/2017 (old no. 106/2013) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement of petitioner in services and the respondent may be directed to reinstate petitioner in services with continuity with full of back wages with all consequential benefits.
(b) The petitioner be also granted all the benefits alongwith 24% interest.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5943/2021:
(a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 4.3.2021 passed by learned tribunal and labour court, Jaipur in LCR no.268/2017 (old no. 80/2013) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement of petitioner in services and the respondent may be directed to reinstate petitioner in services with continuity with full of back wages with all consequential benefits.
(b) The petitioner be also granted all the benefits alongwith 24% interest.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5944/2021:
(a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 5.3.2021 passed by learned tribunal and labour court, Jaipur in LCR no.306/2017 (old no. 104/2013) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement of petitioner in services and the respondent may be directed to reinstate petitioner in services with continuity with full of back wages with all consequential benefits.
(b) The petitioner be also granted all the benefits alongwith 24% interest.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5946/2021:
(a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 5.3.2021 passed by learned tribunal and labour court, Jaipur in LCR no.303/2017 (old no. 101/2013) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement of petitioner in services and the respondent may be directed to reinstate petitioner in services with continuity with full of back wages with all consequential benefits.
(b) The petitioner be also granted all the benefits alongwith 24% interest.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7038/2021:
By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof, thereby quashed and set aside the impugned award 21.01.2020 and also to dismiss the
