w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Mahesh Kumar Sharma v/s The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- S S NIKETAN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC162754

Company & Directors' Information:- A N NIKETAN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1995PTC069636

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R NIKETAN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB1999PTC089181

Company & Directors' Information:- A SCHOOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211TN2011PTC079455

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA NIKETAN PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U70109WB2012PTC181044

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. SHARMA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24211DL1966PTC004602

Company & Directors' Information:- N K NIKETAN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45209WB2006PTC108071

Company & Directors' Information:- M S NIKETAN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC062789

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74994DL1982PTC014090

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

    Special Appeal Writ No. 1628 of 2019

    Decided On, 06 February 2020

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench


    For the Appellant:- Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------

Judgment Text

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 22.7.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the award dated 29.7.11 passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service, has been dismissed.

2. The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 69 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The explanation furnished for delay in filing the appeal is not plausible and acceptable and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as well.

3. Precisely, it was contended on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement is in the lower side which deserves to be enhanced to at least Rs. 3,00,000/-.

4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition observing that the appellant had worked with the respondent only for a period of 1 years and thus, the compensation awarded is appropriate and does not call for any interference.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the matter of Secretary, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Rajasthan v. Ram Swaroop (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.15/18) decided by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.9.18, the lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded in lieu of reinstatement in service and full and final settlement of the claim and thus, in the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Labour Court being too meagre deserves to be enhanced by this Court.

6. It is well settled that while determining the issue regarding reinstatement in service, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is required to exercise the discretion vested in it judicially and the relevant factors therefor such as nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of job etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such issue.

7. In the instant case, where the appellant was employed as Labourer in the Department of Public Works as daily wages employee and not against the regular post in the cadre and had worked only for the period from 1st July, 1999 to April, 2000. The dispute was raised after a lapse of 3 years. In this view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in awarding compensation to the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement appears to be just and proper.

8. In Ram Swaroop's case (supra) relied upon by the appellant, the workman was appointed on regular basis and not as a daily wages employee. In any case, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of compensation in lieu of reinstatem

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ent. The award of compensation has to be determined keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in declining to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. 9. The intra court appeal is accordingly dismissed.