Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is warranted where termination violates Section 25F, reflecting a judicial trend favoring monetary relief over automatic reinstatement, particularly for daily wage workers.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') challenging the award dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') in LCR No.200/95 whereby termination of services of the workman has been held to be invalid and the respondents-employer (hereinafter referred to as 'employer') has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the workman, in lieu of reinstatement.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the workman in his claim petition filed before the Labour Court had averred that he was engaged as Store Keeper / Muneem w.e.f. 20.06.1990 till 31.07.1993 but without serving any notice, his services were terminated and he was not paid any amount of compensation. It was pleaded in the petition that services of the workman were terminated in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1947'). In the claim petition, the workman prayed for declaring his termination as null and void in view of violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 along with the prayer for reinstatement in service.

3. The employer, in its reply, has denied the averments of the claim petition and submitted that the workman has worked for less than 240 days in each calendar year and the dispute has been raised after a lapse of long time and there was no violation of the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947.

4. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman worked with the employer's establishment w.e.f. 20.06.1990 till 31.07.1993 and his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 but instead of passing the order of reinstatement, lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded to the workman, in lieu of reinstatement vide impugned award dated 14.12.2012.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned award, the workman approached this Court for modification of the impugned award with the prayer that he is entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

6. Learned counsel for the workman submits that the workman worked with the employer for more than three years i.e. w.e.f. 20.06.1990 till 31.07.1993. Counsel submits that once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination order of the workman was bad in the eye of law and if the same was passed in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, then certainly the Labour Court should have passed directions for reinstatement of the workman. Counsel further submits that if reinstatement of the workman is not possible then a suitable amount of compensation be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, looking to the length of the service of the workman.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the employer opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the workman and submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper, which needs no interference of this Court.

8. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

9. It is settled law, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and if he proves it before the Court, by leading evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, the