IMPORTANT POINT
A Workman who had worked hardly for a year as daily wager having no claim to regularization and raising dispute against termination after 25 years is not entitled to reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.11.2015 in W.P. No.1116 of 2015 and dated 27.06.2016 in RAMCC No. 333 of 2016 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

3. By impugned order dated 24.11.2015 passed in writ petition, the High Court modified the award dated 25.02.2015 in Workman Disputes Case No.45 of 2014 by which the Labour Court, Haridwar had awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement and instead directed the State (appellant herein) to reinstate the respondent (worker) without awarding to him any back wages. The High Court also granted liberty to the State to proceed against the respondent (worker) in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Against this order, the State filed review application before the High Court. The review was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2016 which has now given rise to two special leave to appeals by State questioning the legality and correctness of the main order dated 24.11.2015 and review order dated 27.06.2016 by way of special leave before this Court.

4. It is the case of the respondent (worker) that he worked as Beldar in the State PWD Department (Haridwar) as a daily wager for about a year from June 1986 to May 1987 and thereafter his services were brought to an end by the State without following the due procedure prescribed in law.

5. After almost 25 years of his alleged termination, the respondent filed a petition in the Labour Court, Haridwar (45/2014) questioning the legality and correctness of his termination.

6. By award 25.02.2015, the Labour Court awarded monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/- in full and final satisfaction to the respondent (workman) against his claim of reinstatement and all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

7. The respondent, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. By impugned order, the High Court modified the award of the Labour Court and instead directed reinstatement of the respondent in the State services but without payment of any back wages to him which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave by the State before this Court.

8. Heard Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part and modify the impugned order to the extent indicated infra.

10. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development Officer and Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (2018) 12 SCC 298.

11. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra):

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite