[2026:RJ-JP:716]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14296/2013

1. Mahendra S/o Shri Bidariya, age about 45 years, R/o Village Mahua Khera, Tehsil Kherawar, District Agra (UP)

1/1. Smt. Janak Devi W/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 52 years, 1/2. Smt. Anita D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 30 years, 1/3. Ram Kumar S/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 29 years, 1/4. Rani D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 27 years, 1/5. Puja D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 24 years, 1/6. Meenu D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 21 years, 1/7. Anjana D/o Late Shri Mahendra, age 18 years, All R/o village Mahua Khera, Tehsil Kherawar, Distt. Agra (UP).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Labour Court, Bharatpur.

2. The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Project, Sub-Division II, Srimahaveerji, District Sawai Madhopur.

----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal Advocate.

For Respondent No. : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma Additional

2 Government Counsel.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

09/01/2026

1. The present writ petition is directed against award dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Labour Court') whereby the termination of the deceased petitioner–workman, namely, Mahendra 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– workman was directed to be paid lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- by Respondent No. 2-employer. Aggrieved thereby, the deceased workman has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-workman, Mahendra expired and vide order dated 04.12.2025, legal heirs of the deceased-workman were taken on record.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, reveals that the deceased petitioner–workman was engaged as Beldar by Respondent No.2 on daily wages on 01.06.1986. His engagement was not pursuant to any regular process of recruitment, nor against a sanctioned post. Upon discontinuance of his services on 01.06.1987, an industrial dispute was raised by the deceased-workman through concerned Union in 1991, culminating in the impugned award dated 17.04.2013. The Labour Court, while recording a finding that the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with qua the deceased-workman, however, instead of relief of reinstatement, benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- 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 judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 and Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 29.01.2025 in SLP(Civil) no.

20902/2024 in support of his contentions.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for 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 deceased petitioner-workman, who was engaged purely as a daily wager/contractual employee, had rendered only short-term service and was never appointe