Reinstatement of employees is not automatic after wrongful termination; monetary compensation is an acceptable remedy based on case circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. These petitions have been filed challenging the impugned Awards dated 18th January, 2020, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court- V, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi. Vide the said Awards, the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement along with full back wages to all the four Workmen.

3. All four workmen were employed as security guards with the Petitioner/Management The date of joining and the monthly salary of each of the Workmen is set out herein below:

4. The brief background of the petition is that an incident had occurred in June, 2011 due to which a show cause notice was issued by the Management to the Workmen. To the said show cause notice, replies were filed by the Workmen, and thereafter, on 9th June, 2011, the Management had terminated the services of the Workmen. This termination was challenged before the Labour Court by way of a claim petition that was filed by the Workmen. In the claim petition before the Labour Court, a declaration was sought by the Workmen that the termination was illegal and compensation for unemployment, earned wages along with other legal entitlements was also sought. The prayers that were sought in all these claim petitions are identical and are set out below:

"PRAYER

The claimant prays before this Hon'ble Court that the management has terminated his services on 01.06.2011, illegally, and that the claimant prays for compensation for unemployment, earned wages along with other legal entitlement."

5. The Management filed its defence to these claim petitions and evidence was also recorded. The case of the Management in their written statement was that the Workmen were habitual drunkards and had involved themselves in physical fights with the guards and the staff. They had also allegedly misbehaved with the seniors. On behalf of the Management, evidence was led by the Authorized Representative. It was claimed by the Management that one Mr. V.K. Pandey was threatened and assaulted and a complaint was also lodged with the police station. It was pursuant to the said complaint that the termination letter was issued.

6. The Labour Court, in the impugned judgement, observed that the Management did not place on record any documents to show that threat was extended to Mr. V.K. Pandey. The summary of the Management's evidence as contained in Labour Court's order is set out below:

"16. The management examined Sh Ghanshyam Singh Sisodiya, its official as MW1 who also deposed on the lines of the defence taken in the reply to the claim and also proved on record show cause notice dated 02.06.2011 as Ex.MWl/3 and termination letter dated 09.06.2011 as Ex.MWll 4 besides other documents.

17. During the course of cross examination, he admitted that the claimant was not having any supervisory power.

18. He also admitted that no document has been placed on record to prove that the claimant ever extended any threat of life to Inspector Sh. V.K. Pandey.

19. The management has also failed to bring any evidence on record to controvert the claim of the claimant that from the date of his alleged termination till date he is gainfully employed."

It is this Award that has been challenged by the Management.

7. A perusal of the record shows that the show cause notice and the letter of termination specifically mention