IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal termination of daily wage workers, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and instead, the court may award monetary compensation to meet the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Award/Order dated 08.6.2016 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short ‘CGIT’) in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/26/14, whereby the learned Labour Court allowed the reference filed by the respondent No.1 holding that termination of workman/respondent No.1 is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act 1947’), hence, directed the management to reinstate workman on same status, he was working with 50% back wages along with 9% interest per annum, if the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of notification of the award.

2. The facts, leading to file instant writ petition, are that, respondent No.1/workman was appointed on the post of daily wages Clerk in Jawaharlal Nehru College (JLN College), Sakti Janjgir Champa by the then Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (State University) on 13.8.1998. By virtue of Central University Act, 2009, Guru Ghasidas University has been established as Guru Ghasidas Central University w.e.f. 15.01.2009. Employment of the respondent/employee was kept continued for aforesaid Central University. On 09.6.2012, a news was published in the daily news paper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ that the respondent/workman used to rectify papers by taking money. Hence, clarification was sought from him by the petitioner/University vide letter dated 09.6.2012. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.6.2012, passed by the petitioner/University, employment of the workman was discontinued with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent/workman raised industrial dispute under Section 2(a) of the Act 1947, before Labour Commissioner (Central), Bilaspur hence, vide Order dated 24.02.2014, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi made reference to CGIT, Jabalpur under Section 10 of the Act 1947. Dispute under reference was that :

“Whether the action of the management of Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur through its Registrar & Dy. Registrar (Admn.) in terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Nagendra Sharma, Ex. Daily Wage Clerk w.e.f. 11.6.12 was legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to?”

After receiving the reference, the learned CGIT, Jablapur issued notice to the parties, to which they entered their appearance. The respondent/workman filed his statement of claim, the petitioner/University appeared through advocate, but, later on without filing written statement, it remained absent. After considering the evidence, CGIT, Jabalpur vide impugned Order allowed reference and passed award in favour of respondent/workman as has been stated in the preceding paragraph. Being aggrieved by that award, the petitioner/University/establishment filed instant petition.

3. In the petition, the petitioner/University has pleaded that the respondent/workman was not the workman of the petitioner as the petitioner/University came into existence w.e.f. 15.01.2009. The workman has not filed any order of his appointment with the petitioner/University and he has not completed 240 days of work in the year preceding date of his disengagement. Thus, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent/workman, therefore, provision of Act 1947 is not attracted in the instant case. Referring to the ground raised in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the respondent/workman was not against any sanctioned post, and due process had not been followed in his employment as a daily wager, hence, by way of reinstatement order, the illegal appointee cannot be allowed for continuation. It is further submitted that even reference was not made on the ground that reinstatement order has been passed in violation of Section 25F of the Act 1947 or he has wrongly been removed from his employment. Further since