Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated vs Kailash Chand Sharma S/O Shri Ram Pratap … on 17 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7467]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20129/2025
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated, District Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ram Pratap Sharma, Through
Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Joint Secretary, Hindu Mazdoor Sabha,
Bangali Colony, Chawani, Kota.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7410/2025
Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ram Pratap Sharma, Through
Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Joint Mahamantri, Hind Majdoor Sabha,
Bangali Colony, Chhavni, Kota.
—-Petitioner
Versus
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tathed , District Kota.
—-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumawat Ritesh Ratanlal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
17/02/2026
1. Employer has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
20129/2025 challenging award dated 13.11.2024 passed by
Labour Court, Kota, whereby reference under Section 10(1)(c) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) in
relation to legality and validity of termination order dated
09.10.2003, whereby services of the Workman-Kailash Chand
Sharma were terminated by the petitioner, has been answered in
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:11:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7467] (2 of 7) [CW-20129/2025]
the manner that while holding the termination as illegal, directions
for granting compensation in the tune of Rs.3 lacs have been
given. Workman-Kailash Chand Sharma has also filed S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 7410/2025 challenging the very same award
dated 13.11.2024 and submitted that instead of awarding
compensation, workman should have been reinstated back in
service along with consequential benefit and even if, for any
reason whatsoever, reinstatement was not possible, then in that
case the compensation awarded by Labour Court is at lower side.
2. Facts in brief are that after taking resolution, the
workman was appointed on 30.11.1988 as Sahayak Sachiv on
work arrangement basis in Gram Panchayat Thated. The workman
continued till 08.10.2003 when his services were terminated
holding the same to be in violation of Rajasthan (Regulation of
Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act,
1999 (for short ‘the Act of 1999’). Feeling aggrieved the workman
raised industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to the
Labour Court for adjudication and terms of reference were as to
whether the termination of workman w.e.f. 09.10.2003 was valid
and proper or not?, and if not, the workman is entitled to what
relief.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the employer submitted
that as the initial appointment of the workman was illegal and
without conducting any regular process of appointment, therefore,
he was having no right to hold the post and in view of provisions
of Section 4 of the Act of 1999, his services have rightly been
terminated.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:11:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7467] (3 of 7) [CW-20129/2025]
4. Learned counsel submits that since, termination was
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1999,
therefore, without appreciating provisions of the Act as well as the
nature of initial engagement of workman, erroneous finding has
been given by the Labour Court that termination of the workman
was illegal.
5. Learned counsel submits that the award dated
13.11.2024 is suffering from serious illegality and jurisdictional
error in as much as that without appreciating the provisions of the
Act of 1999, Labour Court has tested the termination of the
workman at the touchstone of the provisions of Section 25(f) of
the Act of 1947, which have got no application in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
6. Learned counsel submits that since, termination was in
consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1999, therefore, the
workman was not entitled for any compensation whatsoever.
7. Learned counsel for the employer has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of
Bihar & Ors. Vs. Devendra Sharma (Civil Appeal No.7879 of
2019) decided on 17.10.2019 and Union of India & Anr. Vs.
Raghuwar Pal Singh (Civil Appeal No.1636 of 2012) decided on
13.03.2018.
8. While opposing the writ petition filed by the employer,
learned counsel for the workman submitted that termination order
dated 08.10.2003 was issued malafidely by the employer by
invoking the provisions of the Act of 1999, which came into force
only on 07.05.1999, whereas the workman was appointed way
back on 30.11.1988. Learned counsel submits that provisions of
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:11:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7467] (4 of 7) [CW-20129/2025]
the Act of 1999 cannot be applied retrospectively so as to defeat
the legitimate rights of the workman. He submits that the
workman has successfully proved before the Labour Court that the
workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year
just preceding the date of termination and the termination order
has been passed without issuing any notice or affording
opportunity to the workman, and even retrenchment
compensation was also not paid to him. Learned counsel also
submits that as regards Section 4 of the Act of 1999 is concerned,
the same has been diluted in the judgment of Bhawani Singh
Vs. State & Ors. (2002) SCC OnLine Raj 435.
9. Learned counsel submits that factual finding has been
given by the Labour Court with regard to non-compliance of
Section 25 (f) of the Act of 1947. He submits that it is settled
proposition of law, once termination order is legal, natural
consequence would be reinstatement along with all consequential
benefits. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Ors.
(2013) 10 SCC 324.
10. In the alternate, while pressing his writ petition
No.7410/2025, learned counsel for the workman submitted that
even if for any reason whatsoever, reinstatement of the workman
was not possible then looking to the long tenure of service of the
workman of around 15 years the compensation of Rs.3 lacs
awarded to the workman is at lower side. Learned counsel for the
workman relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. &
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:11:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7467] (5 of 7) [CW-20129/2025]
Anr. arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20902/2024, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a formula that where there is a
considerable gap between the termination and adjudication of
dispute, instead of reinstatement, the workman shall be entitled
for compensation @ Rs.1.5 lac per year.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
12. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the
employer that the workman was engaged on 30.11.1988 and his
services were terminated on 08.10.2003. Thus, prior to
termination of services, the workman has worked for as many as
15 years.
13. It is equally undisputed that at the time when the
workman was engaged, resolution was taken by the Gram
Panchayat for engaging the workman.
14. Reliance on the provisions of the Act of 1999 for
supporting the termination order dated 08.10.2003 is apparently
misconceived for two apparent reasons; first, the Act of 1999 was
enforced w.e.f. 07.05.1999 and its provision cannot be applied
retrospectively in order to defeat the vested rights of any
employee/workman. Besides Section 4, is otherwise to be read
prospective in nature for imposing prohibition of appointments in
future on daily wages. No provision whatsoever has been shown
by learned counsel for the employer, which may authorise the
employer to terminate the services of the employees/workmen,
who were engaged prior to enforcement of the Act of 1999. The
provisions of the Act of 1999 have been diluted by Division Bench
of this Court in the judgment of Bhawani Singh (Supra) and as
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:11:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7467] (6 of 7) [CW-20129/2025]
such the termination order based on such provision of the Act
cannot be sustained any more. It has also been held in the above
judgment by the Division Bench that the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 being central enactment, it has overriding effect over the Act
of 1999.
15. So far as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioner is concerned, in the case of Union of India and
Anr. Vs. Raguwar Pal Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that in the cases, where the initial appointment
order was nullity and void ab initio, granting opportunity of
hearing prior to termination is not an essential requirement and
would be an exercise in futility. In the case of The State of Bihar
& Ors. Vs. Devendra Sharma (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was dealing with a case where employment was secured on
forged documents, hence such appointments were illegal
appointments. Thus, the facts and controversy in the above two
judgments were altogether different from the present case, hence,
the ratio laid down therein are not at all applicable.
16. Learned counsel for the employer has not extended any
submission so as to negate the finding given by the Labour Court
that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year just preceding the date of termination, nor was he
in a position to submit that prior to termination of services of the
workman, provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act of 1947 were
complied with.
17. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the
Tribunal has committed no mistake in holding that the termination
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:11:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7467] (7 of 7) [CW-20129/2025]
order dated 08.10.2003 which discontinued the services of the
workman w.e.f. 09.10.2003 was illegal.
18. Once it is held that the termination is illegal, then the
question of extent of relief to be granted to the workman arises.
Although, learned counsel for the workman prays for the relief of
reinstatement in service without consequential benefit, however,
in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, where the
appointment was not regular in nature and there was long gap
between the date of termination and date of adjudication of
reference, it has been held that the grievance of the workman can
be redressed by awarding him compensation in lieu of benefit of
reinstatement.
19. In the recent judgment of Amit Kumar Dubey
(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a formula that
compensation can be computed @ Rs.1.5 lac per year for the
period the workman has worked. Accordingly, in the instant case,
where the workman has worked for almost 15 years, in the light of
judgment of Amit Kumar Dubey (Supra), the workman is
entitled for 15×1.5=Rs.22.50 lacs as compensation, which shall be
sanctioned and released to the workman within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment,
failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6% per
annum.
20. These writ petitions stand disposed of.
21. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
Jatin /16-17
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:11:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:56:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
