Reinstatement is not automatic upon a finding of violation of Section 25-F. Proportionality and totality of the facts and circumstances must be considered.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The Labour Court has held that the respondent-workman was terminated from service in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, reinstatement was ordered by the learned Labour Court which was upheld of in the writ proceeding instituted by the Employer-State before the High Court. The High Court having maintained the order of the learned Labour Court, this appeal has been filed.

4. Time and again, this Court has reiterated that reinstatement is not automatic upon a finding that retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, this Court while issuing notice has taken note of our earlier decision in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327.

5. In the present case, neither the Labour Court nor the High Court has given any special reason why the workman should be reinstated. Having perused the material on record that the workman was employed as a daily wager and had rendered service from 01.07.1997 to 31.07.1999 i.e. about two years and having regard to the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the grant of reinstatement was not proportionate and therefore incorrect and the ends of justice would be met in the present case by granting retrenchment compensation. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court insofar as the reinstatement is concerned and direct that the appellants shall pay retrenchment compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.