IMPORTANT POINT
Relief by way of reinstatement with backwages 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 may meet the ends of justice, especially in cases of daily-rated workmen.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant-original respondent assailing the correctness of order dated 09.07.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7162 of 2009 as well as the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in Misc. Civil Application (for review) No. 1 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No. 7162 of 2009.

2. The prayers made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to set aside the award passed by the learned Judge of Labour Court, Dahod in Reference (L.C.D.) No. 59 of 2008 dated 06.11.2008 wherein it was awarded to reinstate the workman with 40% backwages. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties observed that the workman has not led any evidence regarding non-employment, therefore, granting backwages was not in consonance with the law. It was further observed that regularization of the service of workman cannot be ipso facto and almost 24 years has passed from the date of retrenchment of the workman, and in that view of the matter and considering the age of the workman, the possibility of his reaching superannuation cannot be ruled out, therefore, learned Single Judge deemed it fit to grant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as full and final settlement in lieu of reinstatement. Pursuant to passing of the order of the learned Single Judge, a review application was preferred, wherein the learned Single Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is this direction granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which has been challenged in the present Appeal.

3. The factual matrix which led to the filing of the present Appeal is that the appellant- original respondent was engaged in Forest Department from 01.12.1988. It is alleged that on 17.07.1997, his services were terminated without following due procedure of law and in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1947’). The workman therefore raised an issue which resulted into Labour Court Reference No. 59 of 2008. By way of an award dated 06.11.2008, the Labour Court had granted reinstatement with 40% backwages and continuity of service.

4. The award passed by the Labour Court came to be challenged by the State Government by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7162 of 2009. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the learned Single Judge observed that there was a delay in filing Reference, and therefore, instead of granting reinstatement, lump-sum compensation should be awarded. Pursuant to passing of this order, the learned Single Judge, a Review Application came to be preferred. It was pointed out that originally the workman had filed Reference in the year 1998 and it was registered as Reference (L.C.G.) No. 507 of 2008. Thereafter it was transferred to Labour Court, which was set up at District Dahod and therefore a new number being Reference (L.C.D.) No. 59 of 2008 was registered. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed an award in the year 2008, therefore, there was no delay in filing the Reference.

5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge observed that it was almost 24 years and workman was on the verge of superannuation. On that ground, the lump-sum compensation was enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as in the review application are challenged before us in the present Appeal.

6. We have heard Ms. Reena Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned AGP for the respondent-State.

7. Learned advocate Ms. Kamani appearing for the appellant contended that there is a clear cut finding that the appellant has worked for 240 days. There was breach of Section 25F of the Act, 1947, which has been observed by the learned Labour Court as well as confirmed by the learned