Supreme Court directs Rajasthan to pay ₹10 lakh to labourer for frivolous case

For 22 years, the State government had fought against a Labour Court order that was in favour of the worker

The Supreme Court has ordered the Rajasthan government to pay ₹10 lakh for harassing a part-time labourer by denying him regular employment and work benefits while pursuing a case against him for 22 years.

“It is unfortunate that the State of Rajasthan has been harassing the poor litigant, a part-time labourer, who was extended benefits by the Labour Court in the year 2001, i.e. for the last 22 years he has been litigating. This is totally a frivolous petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of ₹10 lakh to be paid to the respondent within four weeks,” said a Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath.

The Rajasthan government had approached the top court after the State High Court upheld a Labour Court decision of 2001 in favour of the worker, Gopal Bijawat, reinstating him in employment.

“The respondent (Bijawat) was reinstated by the Labour Court and the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed. Thereafter, continuously, the respondent has been compelled to file repeated litigation in order to get the fruits of the award of the Labour Court,” the Supreme Court noted.

A reading of the order of the Rajasthan High Court on December 8, 2023 showed the “chequered history” of the State’s dogged attempts to deny Mr. Bijawat employment over the last two decades.

He was appointed as a part-time employee, an attendant, in May 1993. His services were discontinued in July 1994.

In November 2001, the termination of his services was set aside by the Labour Court. The State was ordered to regularise him.

The State subsequently failed to impress the High Court, which ordered the government to pay him minimum wages from May 1993.

Though the State had agreed before the Single Judge Bench of the High Court to consider Mr. Bijawat for regularisation in three months, it went back on its assurance and, instead, appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Division Bench only confirmed the orders of the Labour Court and the Single Bench, while refusing to interfere with the directions of the lower fora. Following this setback, the State had reached the Supreme Court, only to fail once more.