The court established that compensation for wrongful termination must reflect the workman's service duration and adhere to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER

1. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union Of India & Anr., reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 has held that the Court is under an obligation to hear and decide the cases brought before it and it cannot shirk that obligation only because the lawyers have decided to abstain from the judicial work.

2. Looking to the short controversy involved in this case, this Court thought it proper to peruse the file and decide the matter on merits.

3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') in LCR case No.123/1995 (2313/2014) whereby termination of the services of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Workman') has been held to be invalid and the respondents-employer has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-to the legal representatives of the deceased workman in lieu of reinstatement.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the workman in his claim filed before the Labour Court averred that he was engaged as daily wager on the post of Wireless Operator on 01.11.1988 and he was continued to work till 28.06.1993 but without serving any notice, his services were terminated and he was not paid any amount of compensation. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). In the claim petition, the workman prayed for declaring his termination as null and void in view of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 with prayer for reinstatement in service.

5. It is worthy to note here that during the pendency of the aforesaid claim petition the workman died, hence his legal representatives were taken on record.

6. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents before the Labour Court that the workman had failed to work in their office for more than 240 days. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the dispute was raised after a considerable long time.

7. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Labour Court passed an award on 27.03.2017 whereby the respondents were directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased workman in lieu of reinstatement.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the legal representatives of the deceased workman have approached this Court for modification of the award with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation.

9. None present on behalf of the petitioner.

10. Heard learned counsel for the respondents.

11. It is a well settled proposition of law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena number of judgments that if the workman claims that there is a violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and if he proves it before the Court by leading the evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, then the Court should pass appropriate order in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs. Sharfuddin passed in DB CWP No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held as under:-

"3. We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.-D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be Rs.1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been Rs.2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be Rs.3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstanc