1. Termination of workman in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Challenge to reinstatement order. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 860
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Mohan M. Shantanagouda, JJ.
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur - Petitioner
Versus
Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 37385 of 2016]
Decided On : 03-04-2017
Important Points
Reinstatement is not the automatic remedy for termination in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and compensation may be granted based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, especially considering delays in approaching the court.
Subject
Labour Law - Termination of Employment and Remedies
Act Referred
Headnote
Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of Employment - Compensation Instead of Reinstatement
Fact of the Case:
The respondent workman was terminated after working for two years and three months. The Labour Court and the High Court held the termination to be in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and awarded reinstatement without back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court modified the order of the lower courts and granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement without back wages, considering the 13-year delay in approaching the Labour Court and the totality of the facts and circumstances.
Issues: Violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the appropriate remedy for the termination of employment.
Ratio Decidendi: Reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception when termination is found to be contrary to Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Grant of compensation may meet the ends of justice, especially considering the delay in approaching the court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Labour Court and the High Court was modified to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement without back wages.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gagan Sangh, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
For the Respondents: Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gagan Sangh, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
For the Respondents: Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the appropriateness of reinstatement versus compensation following termination in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 2 )
3. Reinstatement for violations of Sections 25F and 25G is an exception; compensation is generally sufficient, particularly given short service and significant delay in filing. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Where termination violates Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reinstatement is an exception and compensation ordinarily meets the ends of justice. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of reinstatement modified to grant monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What is the general rule regarding reinstatement when termination violates Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception; ordinarily, the grant of compensation is considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice. (Para 3 )
7. What factors may lead a court to award compensation instead of reinstatement in cases of illegal termination?
The court considers the totality of facts and circumstances, including the length of the employee's service and the duration of the delay in approaching the labour court. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The labour Court held the termination of the respondent workman to be in infraction of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and awarded reinstatement with continuity in service but without back wages. The approach to the Labour Court was after 13 years of the termination made on 1st June, 1994. The High Court in writ petition filed by the appellant affirmed the said order. Hence the present appeal.
3. The respondent workman had worked under the appellant for a period of two years and three months whereafer he was terminated on 1st June, 1994. Judicial opinion has been consistent that if the termination is found to be contrary to Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception and ordinarily grant of compensation would meet the ends of justice.
4. The respondent workman in the present case had worked for a period of two years and three months and that apart he had approached the labour Court after 13 years. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order of the labour Court and the High Court ought to be modified by granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement without back wages as ordered. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of compensation will be paid within a period of six weeks from today.
5. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid modification of the order of the labour Court as also the High Court.
