Compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement even when termination is found illegal, especially for contractual employment, reflecting the court's discretion to balance justice and legal principles.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jaydeep H. Sindhi appearing for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve appearing for the respondents.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the LETTERS PATENT , 1865 the appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2025 whereby, termination of the services of the appellant was held to be illegal. However, the learned Single Judge has passed an order of payment of Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others vs. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402 wherein, it is held that even if the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the “I.D. Act”) has not been complied with and the employee in the facts of the said case was a daily wager, the employee was only liable for just compensation instead of reinstatement.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Jaydeep H. Sindhi for the appellant submitted that though the learned Single Judge has held that the termination of the appellant was illegal, the appellant ought to have been reinstated in the service as there was a breach of principles of natural justice and the order of termination has resulted into a stigma on the appellant.

4. It was submitted that the appellant was appointed as the Forest Guard, Van Raksha Sahayak vide appointment letter dated 01.09.2009 after following the recruitment process and he was put on a fixed wage of Rs.2,500/- per month. It was submitted that the appointment of the appellant was on contractual basis. During the course of discharging the duties on 06.01.2010, the appellant and his colleagues tried to stop a truck bearing registration number MH-18-M-9324 on a secret information that said truck was carrying the forest woods illegally at Naka, by moving their motorcycle in the midst of the road but, since the truck driver did not stop, the appellant and his colleague were moved aside and thereafter, the truck was chased and it was stopped near Palgabhan village and the appellant also tried to chase the truck driver but, could not catch him. It was pointed out that when the appellant and his colleague returned to the truck, one Forest Guard was moving the truck backward and thereafter, the appellant and his colleagues were taken to Vaghai Range and they were beaten by the other officers while traveling and just to hide the mala fide intention of the Higher Officer in transporting the woods illegally taken from the forest, the appellant was harassed. It was submitted that in view of such facts, there was no fault on part of the appellant and his services were illegally terminated vide Order dated 02.02.2010 without conducting any disciplinary inquiry by the respondents.

5. It is true that the appellant had worked for only 123 days and was on contractual appointment but, there was no fault on the part of the appellant or any misconduct committed on the part of the appellant for which, his services were terminated.

6. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant is entitled to be reinstated and in alternative, it was submitted that just lumpsum compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge may be enhanced commensurating the act of the appellant to prevent the illegal transportation of the wood from the forest.

7. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that the learned Labour Court has rejected the Reference filed by the appellant on the ground that the same is not maintainable and the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.

8. It also appears that the learned Single Judge after considering the fa