Non-compliance with the requirements of the Standing Orders cannot be condoned, and the court may award compensation instead of reinstatement if the employee is not interested in returning to their previous duty.

JUDGMENT

N. SANTOSH HEGDE, J.- On a reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) with reference to the discharge from service of Miss Aleyamma Samuel, a typist in the appellants organisation, the Industrial Tribunal held that the employee had established that she had worked for 240 days continuously in the relevant year, hence her discharge was illegal and therefore directed her reinstatement with 50% back wages.

2. The case pleaded on behalf of the discharged employee was that she was employed as a typist from 21-1-1987 on a consolidated wage of Rs 15 per day and continued to work as such till 14-4-1998 hence she had put in more than 240 days of work in 12 months preceding the date of her discharge. It is alleged that the said discharge or retrenchment was without d complying with the procedure prescribed under the Standing Orders of the Company.

3. On behalf of the management it was pleaded that she was employed only on a day-to-day basis depending upon the requirement of the day and was not in continuous employment. It was also pleaded that there was no post available to employ the said workperson on a continuous basis. The Tribunal by its award dated 24-4-1992 accepted the case of the workperson and held that discharging the services of the said Miss Samuel as typist was not justified. Hence it directed her reinstatement in service w.e.f. 15-4-1988 and to pay her 50% of back wages according to the scale. There was also a direction to the said workperson to report for duty within the time stipulated in the said order.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal the appellant herein preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Ranchi which concurred with the finding of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. However, while confirming the order of reinstatement it set aside the direction to pay back wages @ 50% of the salary last drawn. The management filed a letters patent appeal before the 9 Appellate Bench of the said Court. However, the same was dismissed and now the management is in appeal before us.

5. From the previous orders of this Court it is seen that the respondent Union which represented the workperson was not served in the normal course hence an application for substituted service by publication in two daily newspapers i.e. Hindustan Times (for circulation in New Delhi and h Ranchi) and a vernacular newspaper Prabhat (which also has circulation in Ranchi) was permitted and the appellants having shown proof of such publication the service to the respondent Union was held to be sufficient. This appeal is therefore being heard without the workperson concerned being represented by herself or by the Union which represented her in the forums below.

6. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal, Single Judge and the Division Bench is that the workperson has put in 240 days during the relevant period hence her services could not have been terminated without taking recourse to the procedure laid down in Chapter 5-A of the Standing Orders. This question being purely a question of fact we do not think that in a petition under Article 136 we would go into this issue unless of course we come to the conclusion that such finding of fact is totally perverse which ground is not available in this case.

7. But it is to be noticed that it is not always mandatory for the courts to order reinstatement in cases where there has been violation of Section 25-F of the Act (Chapter 5-A of the Standing Orders) which can be substituted for good reasons by awarding compensation. In the normal course we would not have interfered with the order of reinstatement directed by the Industrial Court. In this case we think the workperson concerned is not interested in going back to her duty on terms and conditions as were applicable to her on d the date of her discharge which according to the record was as a daily-wager.

From the material on reco