ORDER :

Delay condoned.

2. In all these special leave petitions the only question which falls for our consideration is in regard to the validity of the order of reinstatement of the respondents.

3. Leave granted.

4. It is common ground that all the respondents were appointed on daily wages and continued to work for a period spread over two years to more than seven years. Finding that their termination was retrenchment and being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act" for short) a direction was given for reinstatement with certain percentage of back wages.

5. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that even if the termination is held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, the relief of reinstatement ought not to have been granted. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in a case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. reported in 2010 (6) SCC 773 and our attention has been drawn to Paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of the said judgment. Same read as follows:

"8. Lastly, learned senior counsel submitted that even if the order dated 10-2-1987 amounts to illegal termination for want of compliance with Section 25-F of ID Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reinstatement and back wages was not justified and at best monetary compensation to the workmen could have been awarded.

9. In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature maybe appropriate. (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008) 5 SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684; GDA v. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575).

x x x

11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub serve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each of the workmen (respondent nos. 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum."

6. Yet, another decision on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants is the decision of this Court in the case of Incharge Officer and Anr. v. Shankar Shetty reported in 2010 (9) SCC 126 and reference has been made to paragraph 7 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

"7. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh, 2009 (15) SCC 327 and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as a daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 6.9.1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made