Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated vs Shri Banshi Lal S/O Shri Modulal Through … on 15 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15604]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20114/2025
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated, District Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Banshi Lal S/o Shri Modulal Through Narendra Kumar
Tiwari, Joint General Secretary, Hindu Mazdoor Sabha, Bangali
Colony, Chawani, Kota.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Kumawat.
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
15/04/2026
1. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the writ petition has been taken up and heard for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned award dated
09.11.2021 (Annex.5) and impugned order dated 30.07.2025
(Annex.6) whereby and whereunder, the reinstatement was
allowed ex parte and an application filed by the petitioner to set
aside such an ex parte award was also dismissed.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the services of the
respondent-workman were initially taken as daily wages worker by
the erstwhile Sarpanch though he had no authority to engage such
a person and the respondent-workman continued to work with the
respondent till the order of termination was passed. The order of
termination was passed in pursuance of the Rajasthan (Regulation
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:26:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 05:01:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15604] (2 of 3) [CW-20114/2025]
of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff),
Act, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred ‘the Act of 1999’).
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
as the initial appointment of the workman was illegal for the
reason that the Sarpanch had no authority to engage such person
and he was allowed to work till termination, therefore, the illegal
appointment of the workman entitled that his services were liable
to be terminated.
4. The Section 9 of the Act of 1999 clearly bars the
regularisation of the services of an employee who worked on daily
wages basis and also contemplates the requirement of following
the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act if the said provision of Section 9 of the Act of 1999 is
made applicable in the case. The said Section 9 of the Act of 1999
reads as follows:-
“9. Bar to regularisation of services.- No person
who is a daily wage employee and no person who is
appointed on an urgent temporary basis and is
continuing as such at the commencement of this Act
shall have or shall be deemed ever to have a right to
claim for regularisation of services on any ground
whatsoever and the services of such person shall be
liable to be terminated at any time with due notice.
Provided that in the case of workmen falling within the
scope of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Central Act No. 14 of 1947), retrenchment
compensation as may be payable under the said Act
shall be paid in case of termination of services by way
of retrenchment.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:26:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 05:01:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15604] (3 of 3) [CW-20114/2025]Provided further that nothing in this Section shall apply
to the workmen governed by Chapter V-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act No. 14 of
1947).
Explanation.- For the removal of doubts it is hereby
declared that the termination of services under this
Section shall not be deemed to be dismissal or removal
from service but shall only amount to retrenchment or
termination simpliciter, not amounting to any
punishment.”
5. The findings of the Labour Court clearly demonstrate that the
petitioner has not followed the requirement of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It is also not in dispute that the workman
was covered under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
When the petitioner has not followed the procedure of Section 25-
F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court cannot find any fault
with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court on merit.
6. Hence, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and,
therefore, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN), J
3-Mohan/-
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:26:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 05:01:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
