IMPORTANT POINT
Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure. The court may award lump-sum compensation based on various factors including length of service, nature of employment, and the time gap between the date of termination and the date of granting relief of reinstatement.

ORDER :

Pranav Trivedi, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in two group of matters dated 02.03.2023 and 03.03.2023 respectively. Since the issue involved is common, we are taking all the Letters Patent Appeals together for adjudication. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge held that the Municipality shall pay lump sum compensation to the respondent – workmen modifying the judgment and award of the labour court accordingly. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Municipality has preferred Letters Patent Appeals challenging the quantum of compensation. The cross-appeals are preferred by the workmen for quashment of the order of the learned Single Judge granting compensation and, therefore, prayed for reinstatement along with backwages. Thus, we have taken cross appeals together for adjudication.

2. The facts in the background inter alia are that the workmen had invoked jurisdiction of labour court, Rajkot by way of preferring Reference. The judgment and award was delivered by the labour court holding that the action of the termination of the workmen by the employer was illegal. The workmen were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service on original posts with 20% backwages.

3. The labour court on the basis of evidence led before it recorded a finding that there was a breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the workmen.

3.1. It appears that it was the municipality who had filed Special Civil Application challenging the judgment and award passed by the labour court, which culminated into order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge found it fit to modify the lump sum compensation in-lieu of reinstatement qua all the workmen. Thus, it has resulted into cross appeals being filed by the Municipality as well as the workmen. It would be pertinent to mention that out of the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, one of the petitioners had already preferred Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1090 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 18336 of 2021. This Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Municipality and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The relevant part of the order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced hereunder :

“4. Although learned advocate for the appellant wanted to submit that learned single Judge has not given any reasons in modifying the award by granting lump-sum compensation and that the lump-sum compensation is on higher side since the workman was daily rated workman and was getting only Rs.286/- per day as wages, this court has considered the controversy applying the above aspects.

5. It is not in dispute that the workman was appointed in the year 1998, she served as Labourer in the PWD Department of the Municipality throughout. Her termination was on 1.8.2015. In other words, she worked long 15 years with the Municipality.

5.1 Looking to the time gap which has intervened between the date of termination and the date of granting relief of reinstatement, when learned single Judge has thought it fit to award lump-sum compensation, the approach on part of learned single Judge could not be faulted.

5.2 Looking to the various aspects and factors considered above, including the length of service, nature of employment, the time gap intervening, etc., in overall view, the compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/- could not be said to unreasonable.”

3.2. Thus, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the common issue raised has come to the conclusion that order granting lump sum compensation was just and proper.

4. Over a passage of time, the law has developed to lay down the proposition that even in case where the labour court or Industrial Tribunal comes to a conclusion that there was a breach of provisions of Section 25F of the I