IMPORTANT POINT
Termination without following s. 25-F - effect.

Judgment :-

R.M. Lodha, J.

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is where the workman had worked for only eight months as daily wager and his termination has been held to be in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID Act’), whether the direction to the employer for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages is legally sustainable.

2. We were not disposed to undertake the detailed exercise but the same has become necessary in view of very vehement contention of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent (workman), that reinstatement must follow where termination of a workman has been found to be in breach of Section 25-F of ID Act. He heavily relied upon three decisions of this Court in L. Robert D’Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another [(1982) 1 SCC 645], Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [(2010) 3 SCC 192] and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur [(2011) 6 SCC 584] .

3. On behalf of the appellant, Ms. Shobha, learned counsel, challenged the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days continuously in the year preceding the date of termination. Alternatively, she submitted that the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages in the facts of the case was unjustified as the respondent was only a daily wager; he worked for a very short period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and for last more than 20 years he is not in the service due to interim orders. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni [(2006) 9 SCC 434], Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and Another [(2008) 1 SCC 575], Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another [(2009) 15 SCC 327], Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others [(2010) 6 SCC 773] and In-charge Officer and Another v. Shankar Shetty [(2010) 9 SCC 126], she submitted that respondent was at best entitled to some compensation for unlawful termination.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent was engaged as a daily wager. The Labour Court, Bharatpur, in its award dated 28.06.2001 has recorded the findings that the respondent had worked as technician (Mistri) under the appellant for 240 days for the period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and the termination of his service by an oral order on 31.10.1991 was violative of Section 25-F of the ID Act. We are not inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the Labour Court; we take them to be correct. The question, as noted above, is whether direction for reinstatement of respondent with continuity in service along with 25 per cent of back wages in view of the above findings is just and proper.

5. More than five decades back, this Court in Assam Oil Company Limited, New Delhi v. Its Workmen [AIR 1960 SC 1264] observed that the normal rule in cases of wrongful dismissal was reinstatement but there could be cases where it would not be expedient to follow this normal rule and to direct reinstatement. Having regard to the facts of that case, this Court set aside the order of reinstatement although dismissal of the employee was found to be wrongful and awarded compensation.

6. In M/s. Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela v. A.K. Roy and Others [(1969) 3 SCC 513], this Court noted that there have been cases where reinstatement has not been considered as either desirable or expedient.

7. In M/s. Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Chopra [(1969) 3 SCC 653], this Court reiterated what was stated in Assam Oil Company Limited9. In paragraph 6 (pgs. 655-656) of the Report, this Court said :

“6. The normal rule is that in cases of invalid orders of dismissal industrial adjudication would direct reinstatement of a dismissed employee. Nevertheless, there would be cases where it would not be expedient to adopt such a cours