Reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in all cases of illegal termination. In the case of daily wage workers, monetary compensation may be more appropriate, especially when the termination was due to a procedural defect and the worker has no right to regularisation.

1. Aggrieved of the award dated 15th March, 2004; the State petitioners have instituted the writ proceedings with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts essential for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that the respondent-workman (Late Shri Har Chandi - deceased), was engaged on 1st January, 1987; on daily wages basis. His services were terminated on 20th September, 1988, without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). On an industrial dispute raised by the respondent-workman, the Labour Court, Bharatpur, on a consideration of statement of claim, response filed on behalf of the petitioner-employer, evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on record; answered the reference in negative and in favour of the deceased workman with a direction for re in statement along with 25% of back wages and continuity of service.

3. Learned counsel for the State-petitioners/employer, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages basis. It is further contended that his services were neither terminated nor he was removed rather he voluntarily left/abandoned the employment. Moreover, the respondent workman was engaged in the Drought Relief Scheme. Further, having regard to the short duration of his engagement; the direction issued by the Labour Court for reinstatement with continuity of service as well as back wages to the extent of 25%; is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the materials available on record.

4. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court lost sight of the important aspect of the matter for the respondent-workman, who voluntarily abandoned the employment was engaged on daily wages basis and he did not undergo any recruitment process in accordance with any statutory recruitment rules, and therefore, there was no violation of any of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25G and/or 25H of the Act of 1947. In the alternative, learned counsel relying upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. v. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 emphasised that the Labour Court failed to exercise the judicial discretion while making an award for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of back wages as in such matters, pecuniary compensation is the proper relief.

5. Learned counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the legal heirs of the respondent-workman (deceased), while supporting the impugned award passed by the Labour court, contended that the findings arrived at and the conclusion drawn on a proper analysis of the facts and appreciation of the evidence by the Labour Court, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, an award made by the Labour Court/Tribunal may be interfered with only wherein the award suffers with perversity or a finding based on no evidence, which is not the case at hand. However, it is contended that since the respondent-workman died on 23rd April, 2005, therefore, the relief of reinstatement has become in fructuous, but the legal heirs deserve to be compensated by adequate monitory benefits. Reliance has been placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

7. It is pleaded case of the State-petitioners that the respondent-workman (deceased) himself abandoned the employment, and therefor