Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ application is aggrieved of the award dated 12th June, 2012, to the extent of molding the relief for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. one lac in lieu of reinstatement and has approached this Court, praying for the following relief(s): "(i) to modify the award dated 12/6/2012 passed by Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur Rajasthan to the extent of issuing direction holding the petitioner entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages from the date of his removal from service with all consequential benefits. (ii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was, initially appointed on the post of Conductor, purely on temporary basis for 30 days vide order dated 30th June, 1982, on probation. On 10th August, 1984, while on duty, he was found carrying two passengers without tickets; leading to imposition of penalty of his removal from service, on 31st August, 1984. The petitioner, challenging the penalty, instituted a civil suit in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was lateron withdrawn in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnkant v. Roadways;, AIR 1995, 1715. On an industrial dispute raised, the State Government made a reference on 30th December, 1998, to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, taking into consideration, the statement of claim, response to the statement of claim, evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on record, concluded that the employment of the petitioner was terminated during the period of probation. The statement deposed by witness, produced on behalf of the R.S.R.T.C., in the cross examination, the witness admitted the fact that during the course of inspection two passengers were found without tickets while the petitioner was on duty as conductor on the vehicle. The Labour Court also recorded a finding that the basis of termination of the employment was the unsatisfactory work of the petitioner, as was evident from the materials available on record, and arrived at the conclusion that the termination of the employment was illegal. However, instead of direction for reinstatement as a consequence relief thereof; the Labour Court allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. one lac in lieu of reinstatement.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds, of the writ application, assailed the impugned award to the extent of moulding of the relief for grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement firstly, for once the finding arrived that the termination of the employment of the petitioner was on account of 'unsatisfactory work', the relief of reinstatement ought to have been allowed and compensation. Secondly, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner for he was availing the remedy before the Civil Court and withdrew the proceedings in view of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and availed of the remedy in accordance with law. Thirdly, the order of termination of the employment was stigmatic and was rightly held to be illegal, and therefore, as a consequence reinstatement has to be the relief. Hence, the Labour Court committed gross error while making the relief to compensation in lieu of reinstatement.;