The main legal point established is that even in cases of illegal termination of service, reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic. The court can grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, considering factors such as the nature of service, mode and manner of recruitment, and length of engagement as a daily wager.

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The petitioner Smt. Radha Devi vide the present petition seeks the setting aside of the impugned award dated 5.3.2015 of the Presiding Officer Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma, Delhi in DID No.56/10, Unique ID No.02402C0149092010 vide which whilst holding that the respondent had not been able to prove that the petitioner’s services with the respondent, i.e., the Food & Civil Supplies Department, which were availed of by the respondent were on contractual basis for a limited period and that the respondent fell within the ambit of ‘Industry’ in terms of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and implicitly thus held that the termination of services of the petitioner on 31.12.2009 by the respondent were illegal, however did not grant reinstatement with full back wages and in lieu of the same granted a lumpsum compensation of Rs.60,000/- with directions to the Management, i.e., the respondent herein to pay the said amount to the work-woman within a month from the date of publication of the award dated 5.3.2015 failing which the petitioner would be liable to be paid interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award, i.e., 5.3.2015, till realization, and the petitioner thus seeks that the relief of reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages be granted to her apart from the costs of the petition.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent who put in appearance and the counter affidavit and the written statement on behalf of the respondent were submitted. During the pendency of the present petition vide order dated 7.9.2016, the respondent was directed to pay to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the impugned award without prejudice to her rights and contentions which amount of Rs.60,000/- has been released for payment through the RTGS mode into the account of the petitioner at the Syndicate Bank, Delhi on 28.9.2016.

3. Submissions were made on behalf of either side.

4. As per the record, as indicated vide the impugned award, on 1.7.2007, the petitioner was appointed as a Safai Karamchari (full day worker) by the State Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi vide order No. F.1(569)/Admn./SC/2007 dated 30.10.2007, 23.7.2008 and 4.9.2008 and her services were confirmed a number of times by the Head of the Department, Secretary –cum-Commissioner (Food Supply and Consumer Affairs Department) (P-4/C) as per provisions vide Finance General Deptt. Circular No.F-13/Fin./G/2003-2004/1035-1285 dated 9.10.2003 having been determined dated 9.10.2003 and had been appointed on 1.7.2007 and her services continued till 31.12.2009 when her services were terminated without giving her any notice and retrenchment compensation, and she thus issued a legal notice dated 22.1.2010 through counsel and sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

5. The management contended before the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Karkardooma, that it was not an industry and that the work-woman had been appointed as a part-time Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 1.7.2007 but subsequently in view of the requirement, was taken a full time worker purely on a contractual basis initially for a period of three months on daily wages which came to an end finally on 31.12.2009.

6. During the course of proceedings before the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court the following issues were framed on 11.3.2011 which are to the effect

(i) Whether the workman was employed on contractual basis? OPM

(ii) Whether the management is an ‘industry’ as defined u/s 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act? OPW

(iii) Relief.

7. On 23.12.2012 none having represented the management, i.e., the respondent to the present petition, it was thus proceeded ex parte and on the said date the work-woman was also examined as WW-1/1 and tendered in evidence her affidavit EX.WW-1/A and relied upon the legal notice dated 22.1.2010 Ex.WW -1/1 inter alia. Ex.WW-1/5 placed on the record was the order dated 4.9.2008 vide which