[2026:RJ-JP:5005]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16823/2022

1. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division-Dholpur

2. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-

Division-Rajakheda, District-Dholpur.

3. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-

Division-Ii, Dholpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Ramratan, R/o Bhaisena, Tehsil And District-Dholpur.

2. Rambharosi S/o Shri Sarman, R/o Bhaisena, Tehsil And District-Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

02/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners with following prayer:-

"i) By issuance of suitable Writ, Direction or Order in the nature thereof thereby the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur in case LCR No. 1111/2014 (52/2011), "Narendra Kumar & Another Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD, Dholpur" and further pleased to dismiss the statement of claim filed by the respondent in toto.

ii) Any other Order or Direction, which your lordships may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice.

iii) The writ petition may kindly be allowed throughout with costs."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents workmen have raised the dispute after a delay of 19- 20 years and due to delay, the respondents workmen are not entitled for any relief, but the learned Labour Court without considering the delay has allowed the reference and awarded compensation to the respondents workmen. He further submits that after several years, it is impossible for any of the Department to produce proper record and the facts before any of the Tribunal but the Labour Court taking note of the fact that the workmen have abandoned their claim for reinstatement, has directed payment of compensation. He further submits that the order per se is illegal and contrary to settled canons of law.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the respondents workmen have worked as daily wager, who are rustic villager, and not aware about their right and entitlement. He further submits that the core question before the Labour Court was whether the termination order was illegal or not. He further submits that the Labour Court has awarded the compensation instead of reinstatement.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. After a dispute is raised by the respondents workmen, the Labour Department has referred the same under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') for determination to the Labour Court. A specific question was framed in the reference about the delay, in particular, raising the dispute after a substantial delay, 19 years.

6. The Labour Court while considering the provision of the Act of 1947, has opined that no particular limitation is prescribed for raising the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Even learned counsel has failed to show any period of limitation prescribed for raising dispute under the Act of 1947.

7. In case of the State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Raj Kumar : AIR 2019 SC 310 = (2019) 14 SCC 353, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that almost 25 years after the alleged termination, the workman has filed a petition before the Labour Court questioning the legality and correctness of his termination. The Labour Court has awarded compensation of ₹30,000/- whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation to ₹1,00,000/-.

8. The delay in raising the dispute affects the chances of reinstatement, but if the order of termination is challenged and the same is found to be illegal, then