Monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages may be appropriate in cases of illegal termination, considering relevant factors such as the workman's status, nature of employment, and span of service.

Headnote:
Labour Court - Lumpsum Compensation - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25F
Fact of the Case:

The case involved multiple Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Nadiad, in different Reference Cases. The workmen sought reinstatement on their original post with backwages, while the Labour Court awarded lumpsum compensation in each case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the termination of the workmen's services breached Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the workmen had put in continuous service. However, due to the end of the contract between the contractor and principal employer, reinstatement was not possible, leading to the award of lumpsum compensation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination was illegal and whether the relief of reinstatement and other reliefs were necessary. The court also considered the legal relationship between the parties and the nature of employment of the workmen.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of illegal termination, monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages may be appropriate, considering factors such as the workman's status, nature of employment, span of service, and other relevant circumstances.
Final Decision: All the Letters Patent Appeals were summarily dismissed, and the respective Civil Applications were disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

All these Letters Patent Appeals arise from common judgment dated 12.12.2019 of learned Single Judge, dismissing the respective Special Civil Applications. The Special Civil Application was directed against the judgment and award of Labour Court, Nadiad, in different Reference Cases. Though the Reference Cases were different, they involved similar facts and identical issue. All the present Letters Patent Appeals, in that view, are also treated for disposal by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Prashant Desai with learned advocate Mr. Rutul Desai for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Shailesh Sharma for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi for Gandhi Law Associates for respondent no.2 in all the Letters Patent Appeals, at length.

2.1 Learned advocates for the parties stated that they argued the Letters Patent Appeals finally. They stated that the pleadings were completed and no further were required to be added or supplemented.

2.2 The first captioned Letters Patent Appeal No. 520 of 2022 is referrable to Special Civil Application No. 20281 of 2018, which in turn was directed against judgment and award dated 02.01.2018 of the Labour Court in Reference (LCN) Case No. 268 of 2000.

2.3 The Labour Court partly allowed the Reference. The applicant was held entitled to relief of payment of lumsum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. It was directed by the Labour Court that the amount would be paid to the workman concerned within 60 days, where-after, it will carry interest at the rate of 9%.

3. The term of reference before the Labour Court was whether the workman concerned should be reinstated on his original post with backwages. The first parties in the reference were Lahar Associates- Appellant-petitioner, who was the contractor; Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling North-West Pvt. Ltd., was the principal employer.

3.1 Looking at the prayer in the main Special Civil Application, in each case the petitioner Lahar Associates-the contractor prayed to set aside judgment and award in the Reference Case concerned. In first captioned case it was judgment and award dated 02.01.2018 in Reference (LCN) Case No. 268 of 2000. In all cases, similar awards of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- were passed.

3.1.1 The details relating to different Letters Patent Appeal in this group such as the name of the employee, date of termination, period of service, etc., are tabularised hereunder,

Sr.No	LPA No.-Name of Appellant		Name of Employee	Termination date-Period of Service-Per day wages			Lumpsum compensation awarded by Tribunal
1.	453/22	Lahar Associates	Dineshbhai Gendabhai Sodha Parmar	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-
2.	454/22	Lahar Associates	Pravinbhai Japabhai Sodha Parmar	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-
3.	455/22	Lahar Associates	Murtazaali Ahmadali Kureshi	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-
4.	457/22	Lahar Associates	Shaileshkumar Ramanbhai Sodha	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-
5.	458/22	Lahar Associates	Ikbalhussain Amirmiya Malek	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-
6.	518/22	Lahar Associates	Nazirmiya Ahmedmiya Malek	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-
7.	519/22	Lahar Associates	Azgarmiya Gulamrasool Khokhar	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-
8.	520/22	Lahar Associates	Bathibhai S Sodha	01.01.2000	2 Yrs.	69.40	1,50,000/-

3.1.2 Before the Labour Court, in the Statement of Claim, at exhibit 3, the second party workmen stated that they were working as the employee of the contractor since many years, but, under the guise of contractual employee, the work of the principal employer was required to be done. The workmen were given work of collecting a