The relief of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and the court has discretion to determine an apposite relief in cases of illegal termination.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the Judgment dated 04.05.2023 (hereafter `the impugned judgment') passed by the learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has upheld the award dated 03.08.2013 (hereafter `the impugned award') passed by the learned Labour Court in an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner (DID No.84/2010 captioned Sh. Shashank Gupta v. M/s MIRC Electronics Limited).

2. In terms of the impugned award, the learned Labour Court had accepted that the appellant was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter `ID Act') and his termination from the services of the respondent company (hereafter `MEL') was not in compliance with the provisions of the ID Act. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the learned Labour Court declined the appellant's prayer for being reinstated with full back wages and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of the said relief.

3. The impugned award was assailed by the appellant workman as well as MEL by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, numbered as W.P.(C) 2410/2015 and W.P.(C) 279/2014 respectively. The said petitions were disposed of by an order dated 20.12.2016 enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned labour court to Rs.8,00,000/- from Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The appellant workman appealed the said order dated 20.12.2016 before a Division Bench of this Court (LPA 531/2018 captioned Shashank Gupta v. M/s MIRC Electronics Ltd.), which was disposed of by an order dated 26.02.2019. The Division Bench Court set aside the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge and restored the writ petitions filed by the appellant as well as MEL, W.P.(C) 2410/2015 and W.P.(C) 279/2014, for a decision afresh on merits.

5. The said petitions were heard and disposed of on merits by the impugned judgment rejecting both the petitions and upholding the impugned award. The petitioner assails the decision to deny reinstatement with back wages and award of compensation in lieu of the same. In the alternative, it is also contended by the petitioner that award of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation is meagre and unreasonable considering that the petitioner had served with the MEL and its affiliated entities for a period of sixteen years.

6. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant was initially appointed as a computer operator with ONIDA Savak Limited with effect from 20.04.1992. He was required to perform typing and clerical services in the corporate taxes department. On 01.09.1998, the appellant was transferred to an affiliated company, Monica Electronics Limited, and he served in the said company till July 2002. ONIDA Savak Limited merged with MEL in the year 2005 and the appellant was absorbed by MEL as its employee. The services of the appellant were terminated on 30.06.2008 on the ground that the same were no longer required.

7. According to MEL, the appellant's services were terminated as it had decided to shift the electronic unit of the company from Noida to Roorkee as a measure of cost cutting, which was necessary due to recessionary conditions. MEL claims that the appellant was offered one month's salary in lieu of the notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment but he refused to accept the notice. The notice was, thereafter, sent to him by registered post. He was also requested to accept the dues as a final settlement. But he failed to comply with the same. Consequently, MEL sent him cheques that were payable towards his dues as well as gratuity. The appellant received the amount and encashed the said cheques.

8. The appellant claims that he was on leave from 01.07.2008 to 31.07.2008 and on expiry of his leave, he was not permitted to resume his duties. He claims that his services were terminated orally without providing any reason. The appellant alleged that the Manager (