SBCWP5227/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5227/1997 Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, C.A.D. Kota Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Another Date of Order ::: 19.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for petitioner Shri Kunal Rawat, Counsel for respondent No.1 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, C.A.D., Kota, challenging Award dated 7th of May, 1996 passed by Labour Court, Kota. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for petitioner, has argued that appointment of respondent- workman was made on the post of Beldar only on casual basis and not as a typist. It is contended that petitioner Assistant Engineer was not competent to appoint him as a typist. The learned Labour Court was wholly unjustified in holding that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for SBCWP5227/1997 // 2 // short, 'the ID Act'). In any case the learned Labour Court could not have directed reinstatement of respondent-workman. It is next contended that this Court considering all these facts stayed operation of the impugned Award by order dated 15.09.1997 and therefore the Award has not been implemented so far. The respondent-workman admittedly was removed on 01.09.1989 from service and more than 21 years have gone by since the date of his alleged removal. There is no justification in his reinstatement now at this stage. Shri Kunal Rawat, learned counsel for respondent-workman, opposed writ petition and submitted that in the matter where violation of Section 25-H of the ID Act is found, a different approach is to be taken. Not only Section 25-F of the ID Act was found to be violated, but also it was found that the petitioner engaged some other persons after termination of the respondent-workman. The learned counsel submitted that mere pendency of writ petition before this Court for a long period of time cannot be taken as additional reason not to grant him relief which the Labour Court otherwise found justified. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties SBCWP5227/1997 // 3 // and perusing material on record, I find that in the present case it is not shown whether the respondent-workman was engaged on regular basis; he was merely engaged on casual basis, while the petitioner contended that he was causal Beldar. The respondent submitted that he was engaged to work as typist. Even if it is taken as a fact that respondent-workman was engaged as a typist, it is not evident from the record that he was engaged by adopting regular mode of recruitment. That apart, the Assistant Engineer was not competent to engage him as a typist. However, violation of Section 25-F was fully proved. Removal of respondent-workman was made on 01.09.1989 and that the reference of this industrial dispute was made by Notification of the government dated 02.01.1992. The Award was passed on 07.05.1996; counting the period from the date of removal, indeed more than two decades have gone by. Now at this stage requiring the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in employment would not be justified keeping in view the recent trend of law in the Supreme Court decisions. The writ petition is therefore allowed in part. The impugned Award of the Labour Court thereby directing the petitioner to reinstate SBCWP5227/1997 // 4 // respondent-workman with 40% back wages is suitably modified. Instead of that, the petitioner is required to pay to the respondent-workman a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) as lump-sum compensation in lieu of his reinstatement in service. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from today. For any period of delay, the respondent would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//