[2026:RJ-JP:559]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3296/2001 Hotel Corporation Rajasthan through its Managing Director, Khassa Khothi, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rameshwar Lal S/o. Babu Lal, Village & Post Khokhapas, Sanganer Air Port Canteen, Sanganer, Jaipur.

2. The Judge, Labour Court-I, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 : None present.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

08/01/2026

1. The present writ petition is directed against award dated 08.03.2001 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Labour Court'), whereby the termination of Respondent No.1–workman was held to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1947') and the petitioner–employer was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service. However, wages for the intervening period were denied to the workman by the Labour Court. Aggrieved thereby, the employer has invoked the supervisory and constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, reveals that Respondent No. 1–workman was engaged by the petitioner on daily wages basis for a limited period on 09.06.1989. His engagement was not pursuant to any regular process of recruitment, nor against a sanctioned post. Upon discontinuance of his services on 29.03.1990, an industrial dispute was raised, culminating in the impugned award dated 08.03.2001. The Labour Court, while recording a finding that the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act were not complied with, proceeded to grant the relief of reinstatement along with continuity in service. However, relief with regard to grant of wages for the intervening period was denied to Respondent No. 1-

workman.

3. Instead of challenging the findings of the Labour Court relating to illegality of termination in entirety, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his arguments only to the question of relief and contended that the Labour Court committed a manifest error in granting reinstatement as a matter of course merely upon finding violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. It was urged that Respondent No. 1-workman, who was engaged purely as a daily wager, had rendered only short-term service and was never appointed through a regular selection process. Learned counsel further submitted that there was a long lapse of time between the date of termination and the adjudication of the dispute, during which period the very nature of the employer’s establishment/ department has undergone substantial change. Reliance was placed upon catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer PWD (2021) 14 SCC 815, State of Uttarakhand & Another v. Raj Kumar (2019) 14 SCC 353 and recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Another, (SLP (Civil) No. 20902/2024 decided on 29.01.2025), to contend that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of a technical violation of Section 25F and that monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.

4. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of Respondent No. 1-workman to argue the matter.

5. The principal question that arises for consideration before this Court is that whether the Labour Court was justified in granting the relief of reinstatement merely on account of violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, or whether the award deserves to be modified by substituting reinstatement with monetary compensation.

6. It is no longer res integra that violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 renders the retrenchment illegal. However, the more nuanced and settled position of law is that the nature of relief consequent to such illegality is not automatic and must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Th