[2026:RJ-JP:8062]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8505/2024 Pooran Jatav S/o Shri Chothi Lal Jatav, Resident of Rendayal Gurjar Tehsil Gangapur District Sawaimadhopur.

----Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Division Hindon, District Karauli. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Paliwal for Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

18/02/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging award dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby although termination of the petitioner from services of the respondent has been held to be illegal, yet instead of granting benefit of reinstatement along with consequential benefits, lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lakhs have been awarded to the petitioner.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner has stated that he was initially engaged on the post of Beldar on daily wages basis in January 1972. He worked continuously thereafter for as many as 14 years, however, without making compliance of Section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1947') his services were terminated w.e.f. 01.01.1986.

3. Feeling aggrieved by his termination, the petitioner raised dispute after 18 years in the year 2004 before the Conciliation Officer. On account of there being no consensus between the parties, the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report and ultimately the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication, where terms of reference were that as to whether raising industrial dispute by the petitioner after 18 years was tenable in the eye of law or not; and as to whether the petitioner had worked since the year 1972 to 31.12.1985 and had rendered continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just preceding his date of termination; and whether termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1986 was valid and proper or not, and if not, for what relief the petitioner was entitled.

4. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court considered the statement of claim, reply to the claim as well as evidence led by both the parties and it was held that although the petitioner had raised industrial dispute after a delay of 18 years, yet as there was no limitation for raising industrial dispute at the relevant time, therefore, merely on the basis of delay in raising industrial dispute, relief cannot be denied to the petitioner, however, the question of delay shall be considered while ascertaining the point of relief. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner could successfully prove before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days prior to his termination in a calendar year just preceding his date of termination and also proved that the respondents did not make compliance of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 prior to terminating the services of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel submits that once the termination has been held illegal by the Labour Court, the natural relief was reinstatement with all consequential benefits as held in 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

6. Learned counsel, in the alternative submitted that even if, for any reason whatsoever, reinstating the petitioner back in service was not possible, even then awarding only 3 lakhs as compensation in the circumstances, where earlier to illegal termination, the petitioner had worked for more than 13 years, is totally disproportionate and unjustified. Therefore, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Another, (SLP (Civil) No.20902/2024 decided on 29.01.2025), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the aforesaid case, Amit Kumar Dubey (supra), t