[2026:RJ-JP:7435]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17801/2025 Shri Chuttan Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Nathulal Sharma, aged about

54 years, R/o Vill-Khora Meel-II, Tehsil Amer, Dist-Jaipur.

----Applicant Workman/Petitioner Versus Rajasthan State Road, Transport Corporation, through Managing Director/Chief Manager Sanganer Depot, Sanganer, Jaipur.

----Non Applicant/Employer/Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

16/02/2026

1. The present writ petition is directed against award dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Labour Court'), whereby the termination of the petitioner was held to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1947'), yet instead of reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, the Labour Court has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, reveals that the petitioner– workman was engaged by the respondent on daily wage basis on 01.11.1995. Admittedly, his engagement was not pursuant to any regular process of recruitment, nor against a sanctioned post. Upon discontinuance of his services on 13.09.1996, an industrial dispute was raised, culminating in the impugned award dated 14.05.2025. The Labour Court, while recording a finding that the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with, proceeded to grant the relief of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent–workman 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 was the normal and logical relief. It was argued that denial of reinstatement would amount to legitimising an illegal act of the employer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the workman had completed the requisite period of service to attract the protections of the Act of 1947 and the Labour Court failed to exercise its discretion in granting reinstatement. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, 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

4. 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. The earlier approach of treating reinstatement as an inevitable consequence has undergone a marked and reasoned shift.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal: (2014) 7 SCC 177, followed consistently in subsequent decisions including Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer PWD: (2021) 14 SCC 815 and State of Uttarakhand & Anr. v. Raj Kumar: (2019) 14 SCC 353, has clearly held that in cases involving daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual employees, particularly where the engagement was for a short duration and the dispute has been adjudicated after a long lapse of time, monetary compensation is a more appropriate and equitable relief than reinstatement. The Court has cautioned against mechanical reinstatement which may disturb the administrative and financial equilibrium of the employer.

6. In Ranbir Singh (supra), despite holding that Section 25F of the Act of 1947 was violated, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined reinstatement and awarded lump sum compensation, observing that there was no material to suggest unfair labour practice or victimisation. Similarly, in Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 29.01.2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 20902/2024, the Hon'ble Supreme