Reinstatement is not automatic for illegal retrenchment; monetary compensation is appropriate, especially for daily wage workers.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. The appeal arises out of order dated 30.08.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge though did not interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court but has granted limited relief by enhancing amount of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that once the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge were satisfied that retrenchment was illegal and in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), reinstatement is automatic and payment of compensation mechanism is only exception to that rule.

4. The other submission is that in any case the compensation awarded to the appellant is without consideration of the long period during which the appellant remained out of employment, therefore, the amount of compensation ought to be more than what has been awarded.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no legality in the order passed by learned Single Judge. He would submit that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is founded on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai, (2019) 4 SCC 307. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has rather been quite benevolent in enhancing compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-, therefore, it is not a case of warranting any interference.

6. As far as the prayer with regard to reinstatement is concerned, we find that learned Single Judge while upholding the order passed by the Labour Court directing payment of compensation instead of reinstatement has taken into consideration the view taken by their Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer (supra), wherein, it has been held that 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 25 F of the Act, there is consistency 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.

7. The rationale for shifting in this direction has also been expressed in the same judgment by holding that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25 F of the Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation and since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

8. Lastly, it has been observed that when such an employee cannot claim regularisation, nor has a right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further noticed that in a situation where grant of reinstatement after a long gap would not serve any purpose.

10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid legal position as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order passed by the Labour Court observing that the order of Labour Court granting compensation in view of reinstatement is just and proper.

11. The view taken by learned Single Judge, therefore, does not warrant any interference insofar as award of compensation is concerned.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant also made a prayer that even if the compensation is to be awarded, it should be just and proper. As to wha