HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 56/2019

In

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1052/2008

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1363/2004

1.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through its

Managing Director, Parivahan through its Managing

Director, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

2.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation, Ajmer

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Inderchand Sharma S/o Shri Durga Dutt Sharma, Aged

59 Years, R/o Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District

Churu Rajasthan

1/1.

Shanti Devi W/o Shri Late Inderchand Sharma, Aged 68

Years, R/o Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District

Churu Rajasthan

1/2.

Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Late Inderchand Sharma, Aged 49

Years, R/o Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District

Churu Rajasthan

1/3.

Manoj S/o Shri Late Inderchand Sharma, Aged 46 Years,

R/o Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu

Rajasthan

1/4.

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Late Inderchand Sharma, Aged 39

Years, R/o Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District

Churu Rajasthan

2.

The Judge Learned Labour Court Cum Industrial Tribunal,

Jaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Pradeep Mathur Advocate through

Video Conferencing assisted by Mr.

Paras Jain Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

(2 of 8)

[WRW-56/2019]

Reportable

10/10/2023

1.

Heard on prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

2.

Taking into consideration the short period of delay and the

cause shown, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the

appeal. Delay is accordingly condoned.

3.

Application No. 190/2019 is allowed.

4.

Heard.

5.

This review petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking

review of order dated 26.10.2018, whereby, this Court interfered

with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and instead of

allowing reinstatement, paid lumpsum compensation.

6.

The error apparent on the face of record, as contended by

learned counsel for the applicant is that while granting lumpsum

compensation in lieu of reinstatement, this Court was not apprised

of a settled legal position that in the case of a regular employee,

reinstatement has to follow once the order of termination is held

illegal and the discretion lies only in the matter of granting full or

partial or no back wages. In support of his submission, learned

counsel has placed reliance upon a recent judicial pronouncement

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha

Khansangji Jadeja Versus Kutchh District Panchayat, in

Civil Appeal No.6890 of 2022, decided on 23.09.2022.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that this

Court vide order under review instead of granting reinstatement,

allowed payment of compensation, taking into consideration an

extraordinary circumstance that the employee died during

pendency of the appeal and that the litigation was long drawn

(3 of 8)

[WRW-56/2019]

since 1981 until the order was passed by the learned Single Judge

in the year 2008.

8.

In our considered opinion, authoritative pronouncement of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited Versus Bhurumal, (2014) 7 Supreme Court

Cases 177, firmly settles the legal position that it is an ordinary

rule that in case of a permanent employee, ordinary principle is of

grant of reinstatement with full back wages, which is subject to

certain exceptions where the person terminated from service was

not having right to hold the post like a daily wage employee and

even if the termination is found defective on account of violation

of provisions contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’),

reinstatement is not mechanical.

9.

Undisputedly, in the present case, the deceased employee

was regular in employment and it is not