SBCWP830/1998 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.830/1998 Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Devkinandan Sharma Date of Order ::: 25.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Mahendra Goyal with Shri Ashish Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri R.D. Rastogi with Shri N.S. Chouhan, Counsel for respondent #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Jaipur Development Authority challenging Award of Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 16.02.1996. Shri Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that Labour Court has erred in law in not correctly rendering finding on question of respondent's working for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his retrenchment. Learned counsel argued that date of initial appointment of respondent-workman, according to his own case in rejoinder, was 01.07.1986 and his services were allegedly terminated on 31.08.1987. The initial month of July, 1986, therefore, could not be taken as SBCWP830/1998 // 2 // part of working period of 240 days in preceding calendar year because that would thus become a period of 13 months, which is not warranted on correct interpretation of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is contended that in any case the appointment of respondent-workman was not made on regular basis; he was engaged on daily wages basis and his services were terminated on 31.08.1987. Reference of Industrial Dispute was made by Notification dated 24.09.1991 and Award was passed by Labour Court on 16.02.1996. Direction of Labour Court for reinstatement of respondent- workman with 40% of back wages and continuity in service should not be upheld and, alternatively, it was argued that instead the respondent- workman at the maximum can be paid lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Even that amount be determined keeping in view the fact that respondent-workman was paid last wages at the rate of Rs.12/- per day in terms of order passed by this Court under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'). Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for respondent, opposed writ petition and submitted that finding recorded by Labour Court on the question of fact whether respondent-workman SBCWP830/1998 // 3 // worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his retrenchment, was rendered in proper and legal manner. This being a finding of fact, it is not open to interference. Learned counsel submitted that the period of 2 months during which respondent-workman remained ill, was rightly calculated as part of 240 days for the purpose of Section 25-F in view of the provisions of Section 25-B of the ID Act. It was argued that since there was order of this Court passed on 09.10.2000 to make him payment of salary on the basis of last wages drawn; the petitioner was at liberty to require the respondent to discharge duties and in that event, despite interim order passed by this Court, entitlement of respondent-workman to reinstatement should not be denied. It was contended that at the rate of Rs.14/- per day, the petitioner hardly paid Rs.360/- per month to the respondent-workman and this amount even for a period of 10 years would hardly come to any substantial amount so as to justify denial of reinstatement to respondent-workman. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing impugned Award, I find that finding of fact record by the Labour Court on the question of working period of respondent-workman was rendered on the basis of evidence that was SBCWP830/1998 // 4 // adduced before it. The Labour Court in Para 3 of the Award has referred to written-statement submitted by petitioner and in Para 4 thereof it has referred to rejoinder of respondent-workman. It was thereafter though it has noticed the evidence in that regard in Para 6 wherein reference of copies of various muster rolls such as muster role No.1803, 1875 and 1968 produced by the petitioner, is made. Exhibit-W-3 was produced by petitioner management to prove that respondent worked for 245½ days, and in this respect learned Labour Court has relied upon the affidavit of K.C. Sisodia, a witness of petitioner. In my view the findings in that behalf recorded after so much elaborate discussion, cannot be faulty. However, coming now to the question of compensation, I find that Award was rendered on 16.02.1996 in relation to termination of respondent-workman, which was made 9 years before i.e. 31.08.1987 and counting the period from the date of termination, now more than 23 years have gone. Mere fact that there was order passed by this Court under Section 17-B of the ID Act to make payment to respondent-workman on the basis of last wages drawn, would not make any difference in so far as law on the question of reinstatement in the case of workman whose SBCWP830/1998 // 5 // initial appointment was made on daily wages basis and not by regular mode of recruitment and a substantial period elapsed from the date of his termination till the judgment is rendered by this Court, is concerned. However, that can certainly be a question to be taken into consideration for deciding the element of quantum of compensation that may be awarded to him in lieu of reinstatement. In totality of circumstances, in my view, ends of justice would meet if respondent-workman is paid Rs.75000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) as lump sum compensation in lieu of full and final settlement of all his dues. It is accordingly ordered. This amount is to be paid to respondent-workman within a period of 3 months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the petitioner, failing which respondent-workman shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the period of delay in payment thereof, if any. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//