The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of granting reinstatement with full back wages when the termination is found to be illegal cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. In cases where the termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal due to a procedural irregularity, reinstatement is not automatic and instead, the workman should be mandatorily compensated, which will meet the ends of justice. The court also emphasized that reinstatement may be ordered in exceptional cases, and only lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be ordered for reasons stated in writing.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, learned Single Judge, while enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-, has not allowed claim of reinstatement, but only lumpsum compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324, reinstatement is rule and compensation would be justified only in extra ordinary circumstances. He would next submit that the aforesaid principle has been recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital & Others v. Munna Prasad Saini & Others reported in AIR 2021 SC 4400. In that case, the Supreme Court held that rule of reinstatement has to be resorted to and it is not necessary that in every case only compensation would be granted. The next submission is that in any case compensation is also on lower side because in the case referred to above Rs. 10 lac compensation was awarded.

4. We have gone through the records of the case and the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. The principle for exercise of discretion as to whether reinstatement is to be awarded or lumpsum compensation has to be awarded, was considered by this Court in the recent judicial pronouncement in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Another versus Rajendra Singh, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 469/2020.

6. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and Others (supra) as also decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Director Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar v. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar & Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 406/2018, it was held by this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Another v. Rajendra Singh (supra) as below:-

"On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and Ors. (supra) that was a case where having found that the termination was in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, noticing the principle propounded by an earlier decision in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai reported in (2019) 4 SCC 307 on the issue it was held as follows:-

10. In Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai, this Court had referred to several earlier judgments and had quoted with approval the ratio as expounded in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, to the following effect:-

"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since