IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) If ultimately the award of reinstatement and back wages is either not possible to be effectively implemented or it is found to be inequitable on account of passage of time from the date of its discontinuance, then, it is always open to the Court to mould the relief and suitable amount of compensation can be awarded to a workman in lieu of the reinstatement and back wages.
(2) Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

1. The present petition is directed against the impugned order and award, dated 31.12.2005, passed in Reference (LCV) No.552 of 1993 whereby, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Baroda directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent-workman to the original post with continuity and with 50% back wages and with cost of Rs.1000/-.

2. Brief facts are as under :-

2.1 The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was an establishment registered as a shop under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act and was originally run by the partners. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent herein was engaged in the petitioner No.1-establishment as cashier/total/sales person and duty hours were spread over to 4 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the evening. The representative of the petitioner No.1 establishment occasionally used to visit the shop to verify the accounts and to collect the amounts earned during the period of the day from the respondent. According to the petitioners, the salary was fixed and paid to the respondent-workman to the extent of Rs.915/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act. Surprisingly, despite the fact that petitioner No.1-establishment was giving enough facility, still, however, the respondent-workman was making grievances that accommodation and food facility is not being provided for which the respondent-workman, according to petitioners, has dragged the petitioners in the proceedings. On number of occasions, as per the say of the petitioners, the respondent-workman since was not working properly and several misdeeds were requested to be improved upon, still, however, no improvement had taken place. On the contrary, to militate against the petitioners, a complaint came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vadodara. Though, according to the petitioners, in actual terms misappropriation was done by the respondent to the extent of Rs.3400/-, in turn, the respondent-workman stated that under coercion, signature was taken forcibly on a letter written by one Prashantbhai attached to the petitioners' business. These allegations which are mentioned in the pleadings at Para.3.4 of petition were at the relevant point of time examined by the concerned Court and since the said allegations found to be untrue, incorrect and frivolous the concerned Court disposed of the said complaint by granting bail to the petitioner No.1 establishment. The serious misconduct was done by respondent-workman, however, was taking counter blast attitude against the petitioner No.1-establishment which ultimately led to a situation whereby, on 8.4.1993, the respondent-workman was conveyed to take all legal dues, so that relations may not be continued with the establishment. Though all legal dues permissible in law were willing to be paid to him by the establishment, he has chosen to refuse to accept the said legal dues as also the order and resultantly, the petitioners were constrained to send a letter in the form of order through Regd. Post A.D. as well as simple post along with UPC as well. It is the case of the petitioners as found from the record that since the respondent-workman was not willing to accept the legal dues for discontinuance and was raising unjustified, illegal demand and shown an adamant approach which has led the dispute before the conciliation officer initially and after failure report having been filed by the conciliation officer, an order of reference was made and pursuant to which, the reference was registered as Reference (LCV) No.552 of 1993 before the learned Presiding Officer. The respondent-workman has submitted claim statement at Exh.33, over which the petitioner No.1-establishment has submitted written statement at Exh.10. The specific contentions have been raised which the Court will deal with at a later point of time in the present judgment. To prove the case, respondent-workman has deposed before the learned Pr