The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal termination, the court may consider exceptional circumstances and order lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement, taking into account factors such as the period elapsed since termination, mode of appointment, and period of work.

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of order dated 04.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the State's petition against the award of labour court directing reinstatement with backwages to the extent of 25%, in favour of respondent- workman has been dismissed.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General assailing correctness and validity of the order under challenge, submits that the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the petition did not appreciate the submissions which were raised and the settled principle of law in view of catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to in a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of The Director Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar & Ors. (DBSAW No.406/2018) and the batch of appeals decided on 31.07.2018. His contention is that the principle which has now been evolved is that even though, reinstatement may be a rule in a case where it was found to be illegal and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Act but in exceptional circumstances, reinstatement may not be awarded and instead, lump sum compensation may be paid.

4. Advancing his argument further, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in the present case, the respondent-employee was terminated way back in the year 1994. He approached the labour court afterwards in the year 1997, which was ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.02.2005 but it was restored on 16.09.2011 and an order was passed on 29.08.2018. He would further submit that it is a case of an appointment without inviting application through fair or transparent procedure under Article 14 of the Constitution of India but it was a simple engagement as a labour to work in the Forest Department. Lastly, he would submit that the respondent is nearing the age of superannuation. Therefore, it is a case where he would not continue in service for substantially long years. He relied upon the judgment in the case of The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar & Ors. (supra), and submits that only lump sum compensation, in view of reinstatement ought to be awarded in the case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman would submit that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law in directing reinstatement in the present case. The respondent was terminated from service in violation of mandate contained in Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the labour court has recorded specific finding that while retrenching the respondent, apart from non payment of retrenchment/reinstatement, even the rule of last come first go was violated as persons junior to the respondent were retained in the employment. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and Ors. Vs. Munna Prasad Saini and Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 4400 as also a Division Bench order of this Court dated 15.12.2021 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1011/2021, he would submit that the present is a case of reinstatement and not a case of payment of lump sum compensation because apart from violation of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, it is a case where the principle of last come first go has also been violated and junior to the respondent-workman were retained in service. In the alternate, he would be submit that even if it is found to be a case of payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as has been ordered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and Ors. (supra), compensation of at least 10 lakhs ought to be awarded to the respondent.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. On factual aspect, we find that the labour court on appreciation of documentary evidence on record recorded finding of fact