[2026:RJ-JP:2977]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6973/2005 Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Shri Deen Dayal Verma, R/o Mohalla Harbux, Alwar.

----Petitioner Versus Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Raj Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

22/01/2026

1. Aggrieved by award dated 05.04.2000 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner has been allowed relief of grant of Rs.1,000/- only, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Petitioner has come out with a case that he was engaged as 'Peon' at Bank of Baroda, Branch Hope Circus, Alwar, on 15.09.1995; however, as his services were discontinued orally on 07.12.1995, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), which was ultimately referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur, for adjudication, where the terms of reference were as to whether action of termination of services of the petitioner while retaining a workman junior to him in employment was legal and justified or not and, if not, for what relief the petitioner was entitled to. Before the learned Tribunal, both the sides submitted their pleadings and produced evidence in support of their respective cases.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that immediately after termination of the petitioner, one another workman namely Sh. Ashok Kumar Jatav was engaged by the respondent-employer and before engaging him, no opportunity of employment was offered to the petitioner and has given a categorical finding that such action of the respondent-employer was in clear cut violation of Section 25H of the Act of 1947, however, despite that instead of awarding relief of reinstatement along with backwages, merely a meagre amount of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner, which is virtually no relief in the eyes of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error of jurisdiction and law where, despite finding the termination against the mandatory provisions of law, instead of relief or reinstatement, merely Rs.1,000/- as compensation has been awarded to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and opposed the writ petition. He submitted that learned Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and facts of the case, material and evidence on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time, has passed award dated 05.04.2000, and there is no material illegality or irregularity.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as the petitioner was appointed for a limited period of 84 days from 15.09.1995 to 07.12.1995, and under the circumstances that before his engagement no process of regular appointment was followed and there was no substantive right of the petitioner to seek reinstatement under the circumstances, where he has worked as an irregular employee for negligible period, learned Tribunal has committed no mistake in granting compensation of Rs.1.000/- to the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Although this Court is mindful of the limitation of judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against an award passed by the learned Labour Court under the Act of 1947, and the scope of judicial review is limited only to the extent of there being any apparent jurisdictional error or perversity in the award; however, this Court finds that there were clear cut findings of the learned Labour Court that the respondent- employer has violated Section 25H of the Act of 1947 and that even wrong statement was given on behalf of the bank with regard to engagement of Sh. A