Reinstatement of daily wage workers is not automatic upon illegal termination; monetary compensation may be awarded instead, particularly when procedural violations occur.

Order :

1. Instant petition has been filed by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) challenging the award dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in LCR No.49/2006 wherein the termination order of the respondent dated 01.04.1994 has been quashed and set aside and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate him back in service with continuity along with 15% back wages.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman has hardly worked with the petitioner-department for 213 days but this fact was not appreciated by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. Counsel submits that though the affidavits of two witnesses namely Jaikishan Jat & Nathuram were submitted on the record in this regard but these witnesses could not appear before the Tribunal. Hence, under these circumstances, these witnesses could not be examined by the petitioner due to their absence and the evidence of the petitioner was closed, and thus their affidavits were not read in evidence.

3. Counsel submits that even otherwise also looking to the length of the service of the workman i.e. one year and two months with effect from 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994, the Labour Court could have granted him a lumpsum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the workman established on the record that he worked with the petitioner-department with effect from 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994 i.e. more than 240 days in a calendar year, 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 of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1947’). Hence, under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned award. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager for a particular time whereby he worked with the petitioner-department with effect from 01.01.1993 till 31.03.1994. This fact is not in dispute that the affidavits of two witnesses namely Jaikishan Jat & Nathuram were submitted by the respondent in support of contention that the workman has not worked with the petitioner-department for more than 240 days in a calendar year but these witnesses could not appear for the purpose of their examination, hence, their affidavits were not read in evidence. Hence, under these circumstances, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman has worked with the petitioner-department for more than 240 days.

7. 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, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

8. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

9. In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of