Compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded when the termination of services violates Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, considering the nature of employment, length of service, and the time gap between termination and the conclusion of proceedings.

Anil Dev Singh, J.-These appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated October 18, 2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3280/1998, 3 116/1999, 3 121/1999 and 2266/1999 and dated October 19, 2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 58/1999 and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order as they raise identical question of law. The facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows:

The appellants were employed by the State in various capacities on daily wages. After a short period their services were terminated. The tollowing chart indicates the dates of appointment and the dates of termination of the appellants except appellants Khinv Singh and Pancha Ram.

Appeal Name of Date of Date of

Appellant Appointment termination

494/2001 Arjun Singh January 1, April 1, 1990

1988

393/2001 Rcwat Ram April 1, 1983 December 1,

1993

33/2001 Khan Mohd. January 1, October 31,

1983 1993

As regards Khinv Singh, he was initially appointed as Cattle Guard on February 1, 1980, subsequently,

his services were terminated in February, 1984. He raised an industrial dispute but the matter was compromised and Khinv Singh was reinstated on October 1, 1987. Thereafter his services were again terminated but was again appointed on December 1, 1992. Finally, his services were terminated on October 12, 1993.

2. Appellant Pancha Ram (in Appeal No. 3 1/2001) was appointed in January, 1986. He worked till October 18, 1990. Thereafter he remained absent. On November 1, 1990 he produced a medical certificate to resume work, but he was not allowed to do so.

3. The aforesaid appellants raised industrial disputes and the matters were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court found that the services of the appellants were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the Labour Court awarded compensation to the appellants in lieu of reinstatement. The appellants being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court filed separate writ petitions which were dismissed by the learned single Judge:

4. The point in issue is whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding compensation to the appellants in lieu of reinstatement. It needs to be pointed out that the appellants Arjun Singh, Rewat Ram and Khan Mohd. worked only for short periods of time ranging between 8 months to 2 years, before their services were terminated. As regards Khinv Singh, he was being employed intermittently. But he was last appointed on December 1, 1992 but his services were terminated within a period often months. In so far as Pancha Ram is concerned, he worked for about four years whereafter he absented himself

5. Theappellants did not go through a process of selection and were merely appointed on daily wage basis. The time lag in each case between the passing of the award and the date of termination is quite a substantial one. Again between date of termination of services of the appellants and as of now several years have gone by. In the circumstances the Labour Court and the learned single Judge were right in not foisting the appellants on the employers after such long spells of time. The appellants cannot be directed to be reinstated now as they have been out of touch with their respective jobs for long. It is well known that faculties rust when they are not used for long. An employee who is out of job for number of years, loses his proficiency, productivity and efficiency. In case the appellants are directed to be reinstated after several years it will lead to complex I situations. Not only question of their seniority, promotion and emoluments would arise, it will also affect the seniority and chances of promotion of employees who have been working continuously with respondents after the termination of the services of the appellants.

6. We are conscious of the fact that the normal rule is to direct reinstatement of a workman whose services have been terminated in violation of the Industrial law, but