JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. Heard Shri Manjeet Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and also Shri Samar Vijay Singh, learned AAG for the respondent. By the impugned judgment the High Court has interfered with the award passed by the Labour Court, Hisar dated 13th October, 2006 and directed that appellant would be entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) which was to be paid within three months of the order. The High Court notes the claim of the appellant to be that he was appointed verbally in June, 1983, and that, his service was terminated on verbal orders on 01.04.1991, after he had worked for eight years.

2. The case of the appellant was that he was working with the respondent for a period of nearly eight years and service was terminated without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). The Labour Court rejected the contention of the respondent that the appellant had not worked for 240 days and found that appellant had indeed worked for 240 days. It is found that there is non compliance of Section 25F of the Act and the Labour Court awarded reinstatement of the appellant with 25 per cent back wages. As already noticed, it is this award which is set aside by the High Court.

3. Shri Manjeet Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would seek to rely upon the judgment of this Court in Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 SCC 321. He would further submit that some of persons juniors to him were also dealt with in a different fashion, and in their case, they are working and they have, in fact, been regularised also. Learned counsel submits that the appellant should be reinstated in terms of the order of the Labour Court. Per Contra, Shri Samar Vijay Singh, learned AAG for the respondent pointed out that the acceptance of the contention of the appellant involved violation of the law laid down by this court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. He still further drew out attention to the decision of this Court in State of Uttarakhand and another v. Raj Kumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353 and points out that, in such circumstances, an order of reinstatement may not be justified.

4. It is true that in the Ajay Pal Singh (supra), the Bench of this Court, by judgment rendered in the year 2015, took the view that, when the termination is effected of service of a daily wager, there must be compliance of Section 25F. This Court, in fact, went on also to note that unlike a private body, in the case of a public body, while it may be open to resort to retrenchment of the workmen on the score that there is non-compliance of Articles 14 and 16 in the appointment, in which case, in the order terminating the services, this must be alluded to, it would still not absolve the public authority from complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and, should it contravene Section 25F, it would amount to an unfair trade practice. We do notice, this judgment has been reiterated in a subsequent judgment also in Durgapur Casual Workers Union and others v. Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 SCC 786.

5. However, we notice that there is another line of decisions, and the latest of the same, which is brought to our notice by Shri Samar Vijay Singh, learned AAG, is Raj Kumar (supra). We may refer only to paragraphs-9 and 10:

“9. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in BSNL v.Bhurumal [BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 373] and Distt. Development Officer v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia [Distt. Development Officer v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 276] .

10. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in BSNL [BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 373] : (SCC p. 189, paras 33-35)

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that