SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of award dated 3.11.01 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Dispute Case No.102/98, whereby while holding the termination of services of the petitioner illegal, he has been awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. It is further ordered that if the amount of compensation is not paid within a period of three months, it will carry interest @ 12%.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the termination of services of the workman being found illegal and void, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages and thus, the Labour Court has seriously erred in denying the relief of reinstatement in service and back wages to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that on termination being found violative of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), the relief of reinstatement must follow as a matter of course. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Mitha Lal v. The Judge Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur and Ors.", (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.4639/03, decided on 8.11.04) , which was declined to be interfered with by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 31.10.06 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1484/06. Learned counsel submitted that even if the award passed by the Labour Court denying the relief of reinstatement is upheld, the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is too meagre which deserves to be enhanced adequately. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this court dated 19.3.15 rendered in S.B.C. Writ Petition No.3074/05.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.;