SBCWP NO.2812/10. SBCWP NO.6267/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2812/2010. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Neemkathana, Sikar Versus Shri Tota Ram & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6267/2009. Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Neemkathana, Sikar Versus Shri Tota Ram & Anr. Date of Order:- April 7, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Inderjeet Singh for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Pareek for respondent No.1. ***** BY THE COURT:- These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner-Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Neemkathana against the award of the Labour Court dated 15/4/2005 and the consequential order dated 8/7/2008 passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2) Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in SBCWP No.2812/2010, respondent-workman did not complete 240 days preceding the day of retrenchment because he did not continuously work. The documents which he has SBCWP NO.2812/10. SBCWP NO.6267/09. 2 produced on record indicated that at times his wife was engaged to discharge the duties at the 'pyaau' (water hut) and at certain other times, petitioner discharged such work. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per evidence so produced before the labour court shows that the yard where this 'pyaau' (water hut) was opened itself was closed down more than two decades ago and that respondent was merely being paid Rs.9/- per day for discharging duties. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the learned labour court awarded only 1/3rd of the back wages to the respondent-workman but it had no occasion to direct his reinstatement with continuity in service particularly when he was engaged only on contractual basis and for a particular work and the work was no longer available when the yard itself was closed down in 1985 and that more than 25 years have gone by since then. A period of two decades have lapsed from the date, when the award was passed. There was therefore no justification for directing reinstatement of the workman. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Vikash Adhikari & Anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr. : WLC (Raj.) 2007(1) 474. 3) Shri Manoj Pareek, learned counsel for respondent-workman has opposed the writ petition and SBCWP NO.2812/10. SBCWP NO.6267/09. 3 submitted that so far as the finding of the labour court with regard to violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, it does not require any interference by this Court in the scope of writ of certiorari unless it is shown that such finding has been erroneously recorded by the labour court and that there was some error apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel submitted that document that was produced before the labour court clearly proved that prior to retrenchment of respondent on 30/9/1985, he had continuously worked for nine months immediately preceding that date. Learned counsel submitted that even if respondent- workman was on daily wage basis, reinstatement of the workman was only the consequence after termination was held to be illegal. 4) Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record, I find that reinstatement of the workman from the date of passing of award dated 15/4/2005 in a case where the yard in which workman was engaged itself was closed down in 1985 and more 20 years have lapsed by now, there would be no justification for reinstating services of the workman. This Court in Vikash Adhikari supra ruled out various factors culled out from number of Supreme Court judgments where relief of reinstatement should be substituted by awarding SBCWP NO.2812/10. SBCWP NO.6267/09. 4 lump-sum compensation. According to those principles, it would thus be appropriate that respondent-workman be paid lump-sum amount rather than being reinstated in service after such a length of time. 5) In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) to the respondent-workman in lieu of his reinstatement as lump-sump compensation towards full and final settlement of his claim. The impugned award dated 15/4/2005 (Ann.1) is accordingly modified with the above modification only on the question of reinstatement on payment of only 1/3 of back wages. However, the impugned-award of the labour court passed under Section 33-C(2) dated 8/7/2008 (Ann.2) is set-aside in the light of the aforesaid modification made in the award dated 15/4/2005 (Ann.1). Said amount be paid within a period of three months from today and in the event of delay, interest @6% p.a. would be payable on such amount. 6) Writ petitions stand partly allowed accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil