1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 643 of 2001 STATE & ANR V/S SATTAR KHAN & ANR Mr. B.L.Bhati, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the respondent. Date of Judgment : 14.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. JUDGMENT -------- Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this appeal, the State seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.04.2001, allowing the writ petition and directing the termination of the workman to be set aside and ordering reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case, as admitted from the writ petition are, that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar on 1.6.1980. Then, he was terminated orally in the year 1983. Thereupon, a compromise was entered into during pendency of proceedings before the Payment of Wages Authority on 23.5.85, pursuant thereto, he was taken back in service. Then, he was granted status of semi permanent vide order dated 21.9.87. Then, vide order 2 dated 7.12.88, services of the writ petitioner were again terminated with effect from 15.12.88. Thereupon, an industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the competent Labour Court for adjudication. The learned Labour Court, vide its award dated 3.2.93 found that the services rendered by the workman prior to compromise cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determination of retrenchment compensation. Then, the contention raised on the side of the workman about other similarly situated workmen having been absorbed in other departments despite being junior to the present writ petitioner, was also negatived by observing that under the Work Charged Rules, where the draft of retrenchment compensation has been sent at the Sub Divisional Office to be given to the workman, it amounts that compliance of Section 25F(b) has been made. The learned Labour Court found that the draft was sent by registered post but was returned and that from the evidence of Ram Kishore Saharan, Kanti Prakash Mathur and Rajendra Prasad Mathur, it is clear that they went to the house of the writ petitioner with cash amount and intimated the workman's father but he did not turn up to receive the amount. Thus, it was found that there has been compliance of Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the workman was not found entitled to any relief. 3 This award was assailed by way of writ petition and the learned Single Judge in a very short order, hastened to conclude that award is obviously un-sustainable, as the past services were liable to be taken into consideration. It was found that the question of non consideration of the past services is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. R.Reddapa and another, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 269 and with this discretion, conclusion and finding found the writ petitioner to be entitled to the relief claimed by him. It is contended before us by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has not considered the matter at all and in a wholly superficial manner, without coming to the close quarters with the controversy, has hastened to allow the writ petition, while the award of the learned labour court is a reasoned award, and does not require any interference. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman submitted, that may be hyper-technically, the previous services rendered by the workman up to compromise, could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of retrenchment compensation, but even otherwise, in the present case, there is a gross violation of Section 25F, inasmuch as though the services were terminated by order dated 7.12.88 with effect from 15.12.88, but then even the 4 retrenchment compensation draft was prepared on 16.12.88, may be that was denied to be received by the registered post, but when the amount was not offered even till termination, the retrenchment cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has invited our attention to Annexure-5 to show that the Draft No.997475 was prepared on 16.12.88 only. We have considered the submissions and we find that of- course the reasons, given by the learned Single Judge for finding the workman entitled to relief, are not sustainable. The parties had agreed with eyes open that the petitioner was given a fresh employment and considering that only the petitioner was conferred the status of semi permanent on completion of two years of service from the date of fresh employment, obviously otherwise, he would have status of semi permanent since much earlier. But, then the matter does not end here, inasmuch as the question of validity of retrenchment still very much does survive, and the very fact, that the draft for retrenchment compensation was prepared only on 16.12.88 itself, even without anything else, does clearly show, that the retrenchment compensation was not offered to the workman at the time of retrenchment, therefore, the retrenchment obviously cannot sustain. The question then arises is as to what relief should be granted to the workman. In our view, after re-employment, the workman had worked for some more than two years only, 5 and had been retrenched way back in December, 1988, then, in view of the various recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including that is State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in JT 2006(4) SC Page 420 and other judgments, that whenever retrenchment is found to be bad, reinstatement is always not the rule, and workman can be adequately awarded compensation. Considering the totality of the circumstances, in our view, the interest of justice would meet, if the workman is awarded Rs.60,000/- as cash compensation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, so also the award of the learned Labour Court, is set aside, and it is directed that the workman be paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- all told, by way of compensation, and it will end the controversy once and for all. The aforesaid amount will be paid to the workman within three months from today, failing which, the workman will be entitled to recover the same through the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in that event, the workman will be entitled to 9% interest thereon, with effect from today. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /ms rathore/