Rajasthan HC Upholds Workman’s Reinstatement
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld an ex parte labour award directing reinstatement of a daily wage workman and refused to interfere with the dismissal of the employer’s application to set aside that award. Justice Munnuri Laxman passed the order on 15 April 2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20114/2025, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated, District Kota v. Shri Banshi Lal S/o Shri Modulal Through Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Joint General Secretary, Hindu Mazdoor Sabha, Bangali Colony, Chawani, Kota.
The writ petition was filed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated, District Kota, challenging the award dated 09.11.2021 (Annexure 5) and the order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure 6), by which reinstatement had been granted ex parte and the petitioner’s application to set aside the ex parte award had also been dismissed. The matter was taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself at the request of counsel for the petitioner. The respondent-workman was Shri Banshi Lal, represented through Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Joint General Secretary, Hindu Mazdoor Sabha. Mr. Ritesh Kumawat appeared for the petitioner; no appearance is recorded for the respondent.
According to the petitioner’s case, the services of the respondent-workman were initially taken as a daily wage worker by the erstwhile Sarpanch, who, according to the petitioner, had no authority to engage such a person. The respondent-workman continued to work until the order of termination was passed. The petitioner further contended that the termination order was passed in pursuance of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the initial appointment of the workman was illegal, on the ground that the Sarpanch had no authority to engage him, the services of the workman were liable to be terminated. It was further submitted that Section 9 of the Act of 1999 clearly bars regularisation of the services of a daily wage employee and contemplates termination of such services with due notice.
The Court reproduced Section 9 of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999, which provides that no person who is a daily wage employee or who was appointed on an urgent temporary basis and continued as such at the commencement of the Act shall have or be deemed to have any right to claim regularisation of services on any ground whatsoever, and that the services of such person shall be liable to be terminated at any time with due notice. The proviso states that in the case of workmen falling within the scope of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, retrenchment compensation payable under that Act must be paid where termination is by way of retrenchment. The explanation clarifies that termination under Section 9 shall not be deemed to be dismissal or removal from service, but only retrenchment or termination simpliciter not amounting to punishment.
Justice Laxman held that the findings of the Labour Court clearly demonstrated that the petitioner had not followed the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also recorded that it was not in dispute that the workman was covered by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Court then held that once the petitioner had not followed the procedure mandated under Section 25-F, no fault could be found with the impugned labour award on merits. In other words, even if the initial engagement of the workman was alleged to be irregular, the employer could not terminate the services of a workman covered by Section 25-F without following the statutory retrenchment requirements contemplated under that provision and recognised in the proviso to Section 9 of the 1999 Act. This was the basis on which the Court refused to interfere with the Labour Court’s award and the subsequent order.
Holding that the writ petition was devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed it at the admission stage.
