In cases of illegal termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm, but courts may instead award reasonable compensation based on the context of service and misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award dated 15th October, 2019 passed by the Labour Court in LC/DID No.408/16 titled Ms. Vandana v. M/s. HBL Globel Pvt. Ltd. By the impugned Award, the Petitioner-Workman (hereinafter `Petitioner') who had challenged the termination of her services was awarded a sum of Rs.1,02,420/-, instead of reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service along with all the consequential benefits, as prayed for in the claim petition.

3. The background of the present petition is that the Petitioner was employed as a Tele-caller on 13th August, 2008 with the Respondent- Management (hereinafter `Management'). Till 2012, she had rendered her services regularly. However, due to medical issues arising out of miscarriage which she is stated to have undergone in June, 2012, she had remained absent from work. This resulted in the Management terminating her services. However, upon filing a complaint with the Labour Commissioner, she was taken back into service. It was the case of the Petitioner that post her termination in 2012, when she joined back, the Management started sending various warning letters to her, and she was finally terminated on 30th December, 2014. The said termination was challenged by the Petitioner before the Labour Court, wherein she prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages along with all consequential benefits. The following issues were framed in the said proceedings before the Labour Court:

"1. Whether the claimant/workman is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto date)? O.P.M.

"2. Whether the performance of the claimant/workman was not up to the mark and she was asked to improve her performance and she was issued various warning letters by the management but the claimant did not improve her performance despite various letters of the management to this effect, if so, its effect? O.P.M.

"3. Whether the claimant/workman was directed by the management to show quantitative and qualitative improvement in her performance vide its letters but the claimant/workman failed to improve rather she indulged into the acts of indiscipline and misconduct during the course of her employment and discharge of her duty and started absenting from quality training session and refused to abide by the directions given to her by her seniors as alleged by the management, if so, its effect? O.P.M.

4. Whether the claimant was found to be unprofessional and callous while making dialer calls to the customer and was found busy chatting and interacting with her colleagues and made a disrespectful comment about a deceased customer, if so, its effect? O.P.M.

5. Whether the claimant wrote false and frivolous letters making baseless allegations against the various employees of the management to the management as alleged by the management, if so, its effect? O.P.M.

6. Whether the claimant was informed by the management vide its letter dated 26.12.2014 that her services shall be terminated w.e.f. 31.12.2014 and subsequently one month salary amounting to Rs. 13100/- was credited in to the bank account of the claimant towards notice pay as per the terms and conditions of employment as claimed by the management? O.P.M.

7. Whethe