In a civil appeal filed before the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 11-02-2026 by the Rajasthan High Court whereby it declined to recall its earlier order dated 04-08-2025 by which it modified the relief that was granted to the appellant in the form of a direction for reinstatement with continuity in service and payment of 50 percent back-wages with lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, a Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar increased the monetary compensation for the appellant and disposed of the appeal.
After the appellant was granted liberty to raise a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for seeking redressal that his services as a contractual daily wager had been unlawfully terminated, the appellant filed a dispute under Section 2A (2) of the Act. On 18-02-2020, the Labour Court passed an award on 18-02-2020 and directed the appellant’s reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages, and other consequential benefits. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a writ petition and the Single Judge partly allowed the same while modifying the award passed by the Labour Court.
Dissatisfied, the respondent preferred a writ appeal wherein the Division Bench substituted the relief of reinstatement and grant of 50% back-wages with the relief of monetary compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The said order was then challenged by the appellant before this Court, and on 12-12-2025, this Court declined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution. Subsequently, the appellant preferred a review petition which was also dismissed on 11-02-2026. Hence, the present appeal.
Despite service in the present proceedings, the respondent chose not to contest the same. Hence, on 24-09-2026, the respondent was set ex parte. The Court noted that the order dated 04-08-2025 by which the monetary compensation was awarded to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement in service was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant before this Court, which is why the Court was not be able to re-examine the correctness of the said order. It was stated that the order dated 11-02-2026 also did not call for interference.
However, the Court noted that the appellant had served as a contractual daily wager from 19-11-1990 to 01-09-1998 and that he was pursuing remedies since 10-09-1998, which culminated into an order dated 04-08-2025. It was also noted that if reinstated, the appellant would have served for a period of three more years and opined that awarding monetary compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- would serve the ends of justice.
While clarifying that the present order was not to be treated as a precedent, the Court directed the monetary compensation to be paid within a month. Thus, the appeal was disposed of.
