1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. WRIT MISC APPLICATIO No. 81 of 2005 RAMA V/S STATE & ORS. 2. WRIT MISC APPLICATIO No. 82 of 2005 GAUTAM V/S STATE & ORS. 3. WRIT MISC APPLICATIO No. 83 of 2005 SMT. MANJI V/S STATE & ORS. 4. WRIT MISC APPLICATIO No. 84 of 2005 BALIA V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. RAVINDRA SINGH, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 28.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- These four petitions have been filed by the petitioners for recalling the judgment of this Court dt. 5.11.2003 in S.A.W. DR(J) 3625/2003, 3624/2003, 3626/2003 and 3627/2003 respectively. 2 From perusal of the order dt. 5.11.2003 it transpired that thereby special appeal of the employer was dismissed on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court was not found to be exhorbitant. It is contended in the application that as a matter of fact against the order of the learned Labour Court refusing reinstatement and awarding compensation the workman had filed writ petition which writ petitions were allowed on 21.2.2003, and the matter was remanded back to the learned Labour Court for deciding the question of relief to be granted to the workman on reinstatement, and regularisation of service in accordance with law, and in the light of judgment of this Court in Bhawani Singh Vs. State & Ors. It appears that in Bhawani Singh's case the validity of the provisions of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Public Service (Regulations of Appointment and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 were challenged, and were struck down. Be that as it may. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the order of this Court dt. 14.9.2005 passed in other identical matter wherein such recalling application was disposed of by clarifying that the Tribunal is directed to proceed as per directions given in the order dt. 20.1.2003, and the order dt. 5.11.2003 shall have no effect. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that after passing of the order, the legal position has undergone a 3 sea change by consistent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including that of Constitutional judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in JT 2006(4) SC-420, and various other cases wherein consistent view has been taken that in all cases where the removal is found to be bad the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb, and equities can be settled by awarding appropriate compensation. Likewise in Uma Devi's case it has been held that even if reinstatement is set aside being in violation of Section 25F that does not result into regularisation of services or the like. Needless to say that while deciding the matter in the light of order dt. 21.2.2003 without being influenced by order dt. 5.11.2003 the learned Labour Court shall be guided by the latest pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. The applications for recalling are accordingly disposed of. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/