IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that reinstatement is the natural remedy for illegal termination, but monetary compensation may be appropriate for daily-wage workers under certain conditions.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. laying a challenge to the judgment dated 14.02.2017, passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.175/2003 (Gopal Parashar Vs. The Presiding Officer & Anr.) whereby the Hon’ble Single Bench set aside the award dated 01.11.2002, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara and the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 (workman) in the service.

2. The respondent-workman, while working as a casual labour, performed the work pertaining to filling of water, cleaning the office and distribution of papers between the employees of the company from 01.10.1984 to 30.04.1986. The issue raised before the learned Labour Court was with regard to contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’). The issue was decided by the learned Labour Court vide its award dated 01.11.2002, passed in the favour of the respondent-workman, although reinstatement was declined.

3. Since, the Labour Court did not give any relief to the respondent-workman, he approached this Court by way of filing writ petition and the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, vide its judgment dated 14.02.2017 has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-workman in which, while dealing with catena of judgments, the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court held that why the relief ought to be moulded in terms of Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 was denied, if the same is applicable. Otherwise, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court reinstatement is the natural relief to which a workman would be entitled. On this analogy, reinstatement was directed, however, back wages were not allowed but benefit of continuity in service was granted.

4. There is an interim order dated 27.04.2017, operating since the inception of the appeal, by which the effect and operation of the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, has been stayed.

5. Today, Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the violation of law, as alleged, was not made out and the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court ought not to have interfered in the order with regard to termination of services of the respondent-workman, who was otherwise not a regular employee, and thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment deserves interference of this Court.

6. Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman while contending that the impugned judgment warrants no interference, referred to paras No.22, 23, & 25 thereof, which read as under:-

“22. In the case of Nedungadi Bank (supra), the facts were different from the present case. While in the said case the respondent’s dismissal was not found to be in any way illegal or there was any irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings, the facts of the present case show that the Tribunal has reached to a positive finding that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1947. Similarly, in Indian Iron & Steel(supra), the Tribunal not only considered the delay but gave av finding that even without considering the question of delay, the respondent has lost his lien in light of the standing orders.

23. Thus, the question of relief is directly proportionate to the findings on the facts before the Tribunal. If the findings and conclusion are found to be against the workmen, the question of delay is taken as additional ground to deny the relief. However, once the Tribunal reaches to a conclusion that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Act, it has no discretion available to it to deny the relief. Of course, relief can be moulded in terms of section 11-A of the Act if the same is applicable. Otherwise, as held by the Apex Court reinstatement is the natural relief to which a workman would be entitled.

24. Taking into consideration all the