Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) WRIT Petition No. 181/2012 has been filed by the management for quashment of award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure -3) of the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur, in L.C.R. Case No. 991/1998, whereby the Labour Court has held the termination of respondent -workmen, namely, Sarva Shri Kailash, Mohan, Ramkaran and Satyanarayan, with effect from 14.01.1988 to be illegal and, instead of reinstatement, held each of them entitled for lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rupees two lac only), however, claim of workmen, namely, Prabhu, Heera and Mangilal for their reinstatement, has been rejected.
(2.) WRIT Petition No. 15181/2011 has been filed by petitioners -workmen, namely, Kailash Chand Parashar, Mohan Lal Parashar and Satyanarayan Gurjar, challenging the aforesaid award, whereby their statement of claim was partly allowed and awarded them lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - each. It has been prayed that the impugned award may be modified with direction to the management to reinstate them in service with all consequential benefits instead of lump sum compensation. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that services of workmen, namely, Sarva Shri Kailash S/o. Gokul Sharma, Mohan S/o. Ramgopal, Heera S/o. Bhagwana Keer, Ramkaran S/o. Kalyan Bairwa, Prabhu S/o. Tulsi Gwala, Mangilal S/o. Gokul Sharma and Satyanarayan S/o. Panchu, working under the Irrigation Department of the Government of Rajasthan, were terminated vide order dated 14.01.1988. They raised an industrial dispute before the Government and the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, Jaipur vide reference dated 31.03.1990 under Section 10(C) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication. The question referred to the Labour Court was as to whether removal of services of Sarva Shri Kailash S/o. Gokul Sharma, Mohan S/o. Ramgopal, Heera S/o. Bhagwana Keer, Ramkaran S/o. Kalyan Bairwa, Prabhu S/o. Tulsi Gwala, Mangilal S/o. Gokul Sharma and Satyanarayan S/o. Panchu, who were represented by their representative Shri Narendra Kumar Patriya, Vice president, Tonk Division irrigation Employees Union, Tonk, through Junior Engineer, Irrigation Division II, Ghosi Mohalla, Deoli, Tonk, by the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division -II, Tonk, vide order dated 14.01.1988 is legal and justified? If not, then for what relief and amount they are entitled to?
(3.) THE Labour Court, on discussion of the entire evidence, held that retrenchment of workmen Kailash S/o. Gokul Sharma, Mohan S/o. Ramgopal, Ramkaran S/o. Kalyan Bairwa and Satyanarayan S/o. Panchu was made in breach of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act and, in lieu of reinstatement, they were held entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - each. So far as workmen Heera S/o. Bhagwana Keer, Prabhu S/o. Tulsi Gwala and Mangilal S/o. Gokul Sharma, are concerned, the Labour Court held that they failed to prove that their retrenchment was illegal or invalid, hence it rejected their claim.;