The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal termination and violation of Section 25-F, the court may order reinstatement without backwages, especially for daily wage workers, and consider the entitlement to benefits under relevant government resolutions.

ORDER :

1. Special Civil Application No. 840 of 2022 has been filed by the State, challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 27.01.2021, by which, the Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the respondent workman. The respondent workman too aggrieved by the same award, filed Special Civil Application No. 6662 of 2021.

2. It is the case of the workman that rather than awarding compensation, he deserved an award of reinstatement.

3. While issuing notice in Special Civil Application No. 6662 of 2021, this Court on 25.06.2021, passed the following order.

4. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State, would challenge the award of compensation and would submit that since the workman was only a daily wager and had worked for only one year and nine months, the award of compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- was unjustified.

5. Mr. Hem Dave, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the workman, would submit that once a positive finding of violation of Section 25-F was recorded by the Labour Court, compensation was not the remedy and the petitioner deserved to be reinstated.

5.1 Mr. Hem Dave, learned counsel, also read out the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja vs. Kutchh District Panchayat, 2022 Law Suit (SC) 1153. The Court, while referring to the decision in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, 2014 (7) SCC 177, considered Paras 33 to 35 thereof, which read as under:

“13. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, 2014 (7) SCC 177 on the other hand, the discretion of the Court in directing reinstatement with backwages in the event of a retrenchment being declared illegal was described in the following terms:

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala-fide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization [See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1]. Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come fi