Termination of daily wages worker was illegal due to procedural deficiencies; reinstatement was deemed inappropriate, thus awarded monetary compensation instead.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed for setting aside Award dated 29^th March 2016, passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma, in Industrial Disputes Case No. 19/2014.

2. The impugned award holds that the retrenchment/ termination of services of the respondent/ workman was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The retrenchment/termination of the respondent/workman was held to be violative of Section(s) 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ID Act’).

3. The respondent/workman was granted the relief of reinstatement and back wages along with all consequential benefits, from the time of termination of service i.e. May 2005.

Submissions on behalf of petitioner

4. Ms. Manisha Singh, counsel for petitioner, in support of the challenge to the impugned award, submitted as under:

4.1 Respondent/workman was hired as a daily wager, recurrently, for various intervals of time, between the years 1996 to 2005.

4.2 For a cumulative span of ten (10) years, respondent/workman rendered his services for mere 373 days.

4.3 Respondent/workman did not serve for even a single day, for the year(s) 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

4.4 Respondent/ workman did not render 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year, which is a statutory/ mandatory requirement under Section 25F ID Act.

4.5 This Court in W.P.(C) No.2292/1999 vide judgment dated 12^th February 2004, directed the petitioner herein to publish a seniority list and invite objections to the same, by displaying the list on the notice board of the Head Office, also, to consider and dispose of objections, if any.

4.6 Accordingly, objections were invited to the seniority list and all daily wagers (including the respondent/workman) were required to submit their objections by 31^st July 2004.

4.7 Respondent/workman failed to submit any objection during the stipulated time period. The list was finalized and displayed vide Office Order dated 02^nd March 2005.

4.8 Respondent/workman reported for duty on 3^rd March 2005; his contact details, as published in the final seniority list, stood undisputed.

4.9 Various call letters were addressed to the respondent/ workman in the year(s) 2006, 2007 and 2008, however, the respondent/workman failed to report to the call of duty.

4.10 On 16.02.2009, the petitioner/Board entered into an agreement with the Workers Union. It was agreed that as per the demands of the Workers Union, the names of the daily wagers, who had not reported for work, for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, would be deleted from the seniority list.

4.11 Consequently, respondent’s/workman’s name was deleted from the seniority list.

4.12 Respondent/workman approached the petitioner/Board on 21^st February 2012, to rejoin duty and for his failure to attend to be excepted on humanitarian grounds. It is pertinent to note that the respondent/ workman arose from slumber after a lapse of seven (7) years, conveniently so, upon learning about the regular selection process being undertaken by the petitioner/ Board, subject to passing the Trade Test.

4.13 However, respondent’s/workman’s name was no longer in the seniority l