The main legal point established is that the termination of a daily wage worker, found to be illegal due to procedural defect, does not automatically warrant reinstatement with back wages, and instead, the worker may be given monetary compensation.

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the Award dated August 20, 1997 of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D No.1336/1990, whereby the Tribunal has not granted any relief to the petitioner. The industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the termination of services of Sh.Brahm Pal Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.”

2. It was the case of the petitioner workman before the Tribunal that he was employed by the respondent corporation with effect from August 21, 1988 as a Cattle Catcher and was being treated as daily rater/casual/muster roll worker and was being paid wages as per the minimum wages for unskilled casual worker and further that his services were terminated with effect from April 18, 1989 without assigning any reasons and in violation of Section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’ in short) read with Rules 76 & 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (‘Rules’ in short). He would plead that no seniority list was displayed. Persons junior to him have been retained in service. He had prayed for reinstatement with conitinuity of service with full back wages in proper scale.

3. The MCD contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was daily wager on a specific sanction obtained from the Competent Authority on month to month basis and he had not worked continuously for 240 days in a year and therefore he is not entitled to any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. His sanction being till April 17, 1989, his services were ‘disbanded’ on the said date. The Industrial Tribunal framed two issues for its consideration, the first one being whether the workman worked for 240 days in a calendar year? If not, to what effect; and the second one being as per terms of reference.

4. The petitioner examined himself. The respondent corporation did not produce any evidence.

5. The Tribunal on the basis of the record was of the view that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days. It has come to such a conclusion primarily for the reason that even though he had been engaged with effect from August 21, 1988, he had not worked on that day and his presence having been shown for the first time on August 22, 1988, coupled with the fact that there were other holidays during the period of employment of the petitioner which have to be excluded, so there was no necessity of compliance of provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act by the respondent.

6. It was also the finding of the Tribunal, on violation of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act that as the petitioner had not named the workers junior to him who have been retained in service, the same cannot be said to have been proved.

7. Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the submissions as were primarily made on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal inasmuch as the work which the petitioner was doing was of a perennial in nature and the services of the petitioner could not have been disbanded, more so without following the provisions of Section 25(F), 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act. He has drawn my attention to the claim petition filed by the claimant before the Industrial Tribunal specially to paragraph 4(iii), 4(iv), 4(v) & 4(viii) to contend, the onus was on the respondent corporation to disprove the stand of the petitioner in the claim by producing cogent evidence. He would state that since no seniority list has been framed by the respondent despite obligation under Rules 76 & 77 of the Rules, it is a case where the respondent corporation should have accepted the case put forward by the petitioner and reinstated him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the cross examination of the petitioner by the respondent corporation, wherein no suggestion was even given to the extent no juniors hav