[2026:RJ-JP:191]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14013/2011 Satya Narain S/o Shri Ram Dev, R/o Chattarpura, Bundi, (at present- by pass road par badi hwaili Chattarpura, Bundi)

Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal, Kota Rajasthan.

2. The Telecom District Manager, B.S.N.L., Bundi (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nadeem Mazahir for Mr. Hitesh Bagari Mr. C.P. Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gunjan Chawla Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Ms. Sneha Kaushal for Mr. Neeraj Batra, G.C HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

06/01/2026

1. The present writ petition is directed against award dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Kota (hereinafter to be referred as 'Labour Court') whereby the termination of the petitioner–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 instead of reinstatement, the petitioner– employee was directed to be paid lump sum compensation of Rs.60,000/- by the respondent-employer. Aggrieved thereby, the employee has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, reveals that the petitioner– workman was engaged by respondent No.2 on daily wages on 21.06.1997. His engagement was not pursuant to any regular process of recruitment, nor against a sanctioned post. Upon discontinuance of his services on 31.07.1998, an industrial dispute was raised in 1999, culminating in the impugned award dated 31.08.2010. The Labour Court, while recording a finding that the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with, however, instead of relief of reinstatement, benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000 has been awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner –workman challenged the impugned award and submitted that once the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding of illegal retrenchment for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Act of 1947, reinstatement with continuity of service is the normal and logical relief. It was argued that denial of reinstatement would amount to legitimizing an illegal act of the employer. Learned counsel further contended that the workman had completed the requisite period of service to attract the protection of the Act of 1947 and that the Labour Court has failed to exercise its discretion in not granting relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 in support of his contentions.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any manifest error in not granting reinstatement as a matter of course merely upon finding violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. It was urged that the petitioner, who was engaged purely as a daily wager/contractual employee, 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, and during such 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 & Anr. v. Raj Kumar: (2019) 14 SCC 353, and the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 29.01.2025 in SLP(civil) no. 20902/2024, to contend that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of a technical violation of Section 25F, and monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.

5. In view of the rival submissions, the princi