In illegal termination cases involving daily-wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic; compensation and circumstances of employment should be evaluated.

JUDGMENT :

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner/management assailing the Award dated 01.07.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi in I.D. No. 266/96, whereby the Labour Court held the termination of the Respondent/workman to be illegal for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and directed his reinstatement with full back wages.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/workman, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination of his services by the Petitioner/management. The appropriate Government, being satisfied that an industrial dispute existed between the parties, made a reference for adjudication under Sections 10 (1)(a) and 12(5) of the Act, vide Order No. F.24(2436)/96-Lab./48069-73 dated 30.10.1996, in the following terms:

“Whether the services of Sh. Mukesh Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. Before the Labour Court, the case of Respondent/Workman was that he had been working with the Petitioner as a Cook on daily-wage basis from 09.11.1989 to 17.12.1990. He claimed that he had undergone apprenticeship training for three years at the Ashok Training Centre in the trade of Cook (General), that he possessed the requisite qualification, and that he had served the management diligently without any complaint. According to him, despite repeated requests for absorption as a Cook, his services were abruptly terminated on 18.12.1990 without issuance of any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of Section 25F of the Act. He further claimed that he remained unemployed since the date of termination and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.

4. The Petitioner/management filed a written statement raising a preliminary objection that no employer-employee relationship existed in the manner claimed by the Respondent. On merits, it was stated that the Respondent was never appointed as a Cook and that he did not possess the prescribed qualification or experience required under the ITDC Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority Rules, 2010 for the post of Cook. The management asserted that the Respondent was engaged only as a Helper on daily-wage basis during the period 1989-1990, depending upon exigencies of work, and that there was no sanctioned vacancy or regular post against which he could claim absorption.

5. Both parties led their respective evidence. Thereafter, arguments were heard and the proceedings culminated in the Award dated 01.07.2003 passed by the learned Labour Court. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that Respondent had remained in continuous service for more than 240 days and that his services had been terminated without compliance with Section 25F of the Act. The findings of the Labour Court were recorded in the following terms:

“The workman has placed on record the documents which certify that he is a qualified cook. The management has categorically admitted in the written statement that workman remained engaged as Helper on daily wager during the period 1989-90 thus the management has admitted that the workman perform