Judgment :-

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. The consequent relief to be granted to the workman whose termination is held to be illegal being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “ID Act”) is the sole question for our decision in this appeal. Were it not for the argument strongly pressed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delay in raising industrial dispute in the absence of any such objection having been raised by the employer before the Labour Court is no ground to mould the relief of reinstatement, we would not have gone into the question which is already answered in a long line of cases of this Court.

3. Mohan Lal, the workman, was engaged as “Mistri” on muster roll by the appellant, employer, from 01.11.1984 to 17.02.1986. On 18.02.1986, the services of the workman were terminated. While doing so, the workman was neither given one month’s notice nor was he paid one month salary in lieu of that notice. He was also not paid retrenchment compensation.

4. In 1992, the workman raised industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court, Kota (Rajasthan) for adjudication. The dispute referred to the Labour Court reads as under:

“Whether 18.02.86 termination of labour Shri Mohan Lal S/o Shri Dhanna Lal (Post-Mistri), who has been represented by Regional Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Kota Cantt., from service by the Employer – Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division – Kota is legal and justifiable? If not, then applicant – labour is entitled to get what relief and compensation?”

5. The Labour Court in its award dated 03.02.1999 held that the workman had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year and his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Having held that, the Labour Court declared that the workman was entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service and 30% back wages.

6. The employer was successful in challenging the above award before the Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge in his judgment dated 23.08.2001 though agreed with the Labour Court that the employer had terminated workman’s services in violation of Section 25-F but he was of the view that the Labour Court was not justified in directing the reinstatement of the workman because the workman had raised the industrial dispute after 6 years of his termination. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Balbir Singh [Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways; (2001) 1 SCC 133], the Single Judge substituted the order of reinstatement by the compensation which was quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

7. The workman challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the workman’s appeal on 19.11.2005 by relying upon the decision of this Court in Ajaib Singh [Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr.; (1999) 6 SCC 82]. The Division Bench restored the award passed by the Labour Court.

8. In Nagar Mahapalika [Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. and Ors.; (2006) 5 SCC 127], it was held by this Court that non compliance with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (this provision is broadly pari materia with Section 25-F), although, leads to the grant of a relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of the workman, the same would not mean that such relief is to be granted automatically or as a matter of course. It was emphasised that the Labour Court must take into consideration the relevant facts for exercise of its discretion in granting the relief.

9. The same Bench that decided Nagar Mahapalika3 in Municipal Council, Sujanpur [Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar; (2006) 5 SCC 173], reiterated the above legal position. That was a case where the Labour Court had granted reinstatement in service with full back wages to the workman as st