[2026:RJ-JD:930]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1005/2003

1. Rupa S/o Shri Limji, B/c Adiwasi, aged about 36 years, R/o

Chobisa Ka Pandla, Post Talwara, Tehsil & Dist. Banswara

2. Bithla S/o Shri Kuver, B/c Adiwasi, aged about 39 years, R/o

Chobisa Ka Pandla, Post Talwara, Tehsil & Dist. Banswara

3. Harji S/o Shri Harsaing, B/c Adiwasi, aged about 38 years,

R/o Chobisa Ka Pandla, Post Talwara, Tehsil & Dist. Banswara

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer, Mahi Sagar

Project, Banswara.

2. Executive Engineer, LMC Division, Mahi Project, Banswara

3. Labour Court, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Sharma for

Ms. Jaya Dadhich, AGC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

08/01/2026

1. The matter has been listed in the category of ‘Oldest Matters

for Hearing’.

2. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of impugned award dated 18.05.2001 (Annex.8) passed by learned Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case No.74/96 whereby the learned Labour Court proceeded on to award the compensation of Rs. 32,000/- in favour of the claimants-workmen in lieu of

reinstatement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as soon as learned Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that the

retrenchment of the workmen was illegal, it ought to have directed for reinstatement.

4. In alternate, counsel submits that even if compensation was to be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, the same ought to have been a reasonable amount and an award of meager Rs. 32,000/-

is totally unreasonable.

5. Per contra counsel for the respondent State submits that learned Labour Court has rightly awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the delay in raising the claim/ reference in the present matter was fatal.

6. Further, the learned Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that retrenchment of the services of the workmen was in contravention to Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947) whereas the provision of Section 25 N was not even applicable to the employees of Mahi Project. Counsel therefore submits that award impugned does not deserve any interference.

7. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

8. So far as the ground of Section 25 N of the Act of 1947 being not applicable is concerned, it is evident that the said ground was not even raised before the learned Labour Court. The ground having not been raised before the learned Labour Court, cannot be permitted to be raised before this Court at this stage. Further, no reason has been pleaded as to why the said provision was not applicable. Mere averment without any basis or logic cannot be said to be tenable.

9. So far as the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that the said aspect does not deserve any interference in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr.; Civil Appeal No(s).1198/2025 (decided on 29.01.2025). Therein, the Court held that where a termination is found to be illegal because of a procedural defect, the grant of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall meet the ends of justice.

10. But then, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation as awarded by the learned Labour Court is clearly on the lower side. Keeping into consideration the mode adopted by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), this Court finds it apt to enhance the award amount in proportion to the period of years the workmen worked.

11. Applying the same mode to the present matter, the respondent workmen shall be entitled to the following compensation:

12. It is made clear that if the amount of Rs. 32,000/- with interest, as awarded by the Labour Court, has been paid to the workmen, the said amount would be set off from the award amount to be paid now and the amount as mentioned in Column (vii) would be pa