- (1.) BY this writ petition a challenge has been made to the award dated 17.8.2011 passed by the labour court whereby while declaring the termination of the workman to be illegal, he has been awarded a sum of Rs.2 lacs in lieu of reinstatement.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that once the termination is held to be illegal, it should be with the consequence of reinstatement with back wages. This is more so when similarly placed workmen have been given such benefit vide the award at Annexure-2. LEARNED counsel has given reference of the judgment of this court in the case of "The Executive Engineer, PHED, Sub Division, Khetri & anr versus Himmat Singh and anr", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3606/2001, decided on 8.2.2011 where order of reinstatement with back wages exist. Lastly, reference of order dated 30.6.2011 at Annexure-4 has been given to show that benefit of reinstatement has been awarded to similarly placed employees thus labour court has discriminated by denying similar benefit to the petitioner. I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused record of the case. It is, no doubt, true that the labour court has recorded its finding regarding violation of provisions of section 25-F, 25-D of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 yet awarded compensation of Rs.2 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. Petitioner has come up with a case of discrimination. For the aforesaid purpose, I have perused the order at Annexure-2 and find that same is of the year 2001, whereas, subsequent judgments of the Division Bench and of Hon'ble Apex Court settled the legal position holding that a daily wages employee is not entitled to reinstatement rather he should be awarded compensation. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court has taken the same view after considering earlier judgments and awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. It was as a compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This is in the case of "In-charge Officer & anr versus Shanker Shetty" reported in 2010(8) SCALE 583. In the background aforesaid, award of the year 2001 at Annexure-2 cannot be applied contrary to the recent judgments of Apex Court and it cannot be said to be a case of discrimination because award has been passed in the light of recent judgments of the Apex Court. So far as judgment of this court in the case of Himmat Singh (supra) is concerned, no argument of the nature raised herein was under consideration. This is more so when judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court were not cited there and catena of judgments of Division Bench of this court rule award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement to those not appointed in accordance with rules. Perusal of the award reveals that in para 8 and 9 of the award, facts regarding nature of appointment has been narrated, rather, it was case of the petitioner that he was engaged as daily rate basis thus the aforesaid fact does not show petitioner's appointment on regular basis.
(3.) IN view of aforesaid, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit with regard to the ground raised herein, hence, dismissed.;