IMPORTANT POINT
A workman working hardly for a few years as daily wager, having no right to claim regularization or to continue as daily wager and raising a dispute 15 years after termination is not entitled to reinstatement. He would be entitled to a lump sum payment only.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 19622 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. By impugned order, the High Court upheld the award dated 09.05.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in LCS No. 120/1994 and directed the appellant (State) herein to reinstate the respondent (worker) without awarding to him any back wages. Against this order, the State felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

3. It is the case of the respondent (worker) that he rendered his services in the R & B Department of the State (Surendranagar) as a daily wager for 18 years but his services were brought to an end by the State without following the due procedure prescribed in law. However, the case of the State was that the respondent (worker) worked hardly for2 years from 1979 to 1981 and that too intermittently and hence he was not entitled to claim any relief of either reinstatement or other relief under the labour laws.

4. After almost 15 years of his alleged termination, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Surendranagar (LCS No. 120/1994) questioning the legality and correctness of his termination.

5. By award dated 09.05.2007, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent in State services but without awarding any back wages to him.

6. The State, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award of the Labour Court which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the State through its Authority before this Court.

7. Heard Ms. Jesal Wahi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.P. Mayee, learned counsel for the respondent.

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

9. 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.

10. 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 25-F 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 law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v