1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5797/95 Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Mundranalaya Ltd. vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4872/94 Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Mudranalaya Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer & Anr. Date of order : 28/1/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.K. Kala for the petitioner. Shri Suresh Kashyap for the respondent. ****** Heard the learned counsel for the parties. These two writ petitions are directed against the award dated 20.7.1994 and the order dated 6.11.1993. By the said award, the termination of the respondent was held to be illegal, which is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5797/95. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4872/94, the order dated 6.11.1993 is challenged, by which the petitioner-management was directed to pay him interim relief to the extent of ¾th of his wages during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. Shri R.K. Kala, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even though the 2 petitioner has challenged both the orders, but now when the respondent has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2000 and the award was passed on 20.7.1994, the petitioner should be given opportunity to lead evidence as his evidence was closed only because the order dated 6.11.1993 granting interim relief was not complied with. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on judgement of Supreme Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr.-(2001) 10 SCC 211, judgement of this Court in M.M. Soni, Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhalawar Depot, Jhalawar vs. Bhagat Singh & Anr.-2004 (2) WLC (Raj.) 658 and judgment of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Meerut & Ors.-1975 Volume II Labour Law Journal 16 and argued that mere non-payment of interim relief could not be a reason for closing of evidence and on that basis, answering the reference against the petitioner. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that it is not that the evidence of petitioner was 3 closed on non-payment of interim relief. On various dates, the petitioner failed to produce the evidence. He referred to the note sheets as referred in para 5 of the award, which shows that the petitioner failed to produce the evidence on 24.7.93, 3.9.93, 17.1.94, 22.2.94 4.4.94, 13.4.94, 2.5.94. It was thereafter on 3.5.94 that the evidence was closed. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki vs. Industrial Triubnal, Gujarat & Anr.-1986 Volume II Labour Law Journal 74. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that even though on earlier dates, the petitioner was not able to produce the evidence, yet the learned Labour Court on 3.5.94 closed the evidence of the petitioner, primarily on the ground that interim relief has not been paid and the matter was posted for final hearing. The learned Labour Court has not rendered any finding on the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the order has been passed for granting interim relief to the 4 extent of 3/4th of the salary. The petitioner superannuated from service in the year 2000. The learned Labour Court has merely passed its award on failure of the petitioner to comply with its order regarding interim relief also in view of the fact that on the question of domestic enquiry, the matter has been decided against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has challenged both the orders dated 5.1.1993, by which domestic enquiry was held to be unfair and the order dated 6.11.1993, by which the interim relief to the extent of 3/4th of the salary was granted, but keeping in view the fact that petitioner stood retired in the year 2000 and the evidence of the period pertains to the year 1994, it would be very harsh upon the respondents to now require him to adduce evidence at this belated stage. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner could not produce the evidence on earlier dates and the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair, the ends of justice would be met if direction for reinstatement of the respondent-workman with full back wages is suitably modified by awarding him a lump sum 5 compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent-workman a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- in lieu of all his claims. If the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delay. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/