Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 1.10.2002 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the judgment and award dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) be modified to the extent that the petitioner be granted the relief of reinstatement in place of amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- as awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) to the petitioner.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : (i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar with effect from 1.10.82 and she continued in the services upto 15.5.1987. (ii) That the services of the petitioner were retrenhed w.e.f. 15.5.1987. (iii) That further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute to the respondent No. 3 vide notification dated 24.5.1994 to the effect whether termination of services of petitioner Smt. Tola by Executive Engineer, Left Main Canal through Executive Engineer-I, was valid and justified and if not what relief the workman was entitled to. (iv) That the petitioner submitted her statement of claim before the respondent No. 3 and the respondents submitted reply (Annexure-2) thereto. (v) That the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 3) after hearing the parties passed an award dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure-5) inter alia holding : That the order of retrenchment of the petitioner passed by the respondents was illegal and against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, but in view of provisions of Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999) instead of her reinstatement, the learned Labour Court directed that the compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- be paid to the petitioner. (vi) Aggrieved by the impugnedjudgment and award dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure- 5) whereby the learned Trial Court did not direct reinstatement of the petitioner, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
(3.) In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the reinstatement has been denied to the petitioner only on the basis of provisions of Act of 1999, but Sections 9,11 and 19 of the Act of 1999 have been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2002(3) WLC 728, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as when the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that termination order of workmen were illegal, thus, in normal rule, reinstatement should have been ordered, but the same was not ordered by the Labour Court because at that time, provisions of Act of 1999 were in force and awarding compensation is not a routine matter, but in exceptional circumstances, the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is awarded and hence, the impugned judgment and award dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure-5) should be modified to the extent that the order of reinstatement should be passed in favour of the petitioners.;