Reinstatement is not automatic for daily wage workers upon illegal termination; compensation can be awarded instead, reflecting the length of service.

ORDER :

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) challenging the award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) in Case No. LCR 2738/2015 whereby the 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 compensation of Rs.25,000/- 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 averred that he was engaged as daily wager – Safai Jamadar w.e.f. 19.09.1991 till 30.09.1992 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 Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947 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 Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947 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 worked 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 Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947.

4. After hearing the arguments of both side, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman worked with the employer’s establishment w.e.f. 19.09.1991 till 30.09.1992 and his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F of the Act of 1947, but instead of passing order of reinstatement, lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement vide impugned award dated 16.05.2018.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned award, the workman approached this Court for modification of the 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 one year i.e. w.e.f. 19.09.1991 till 30.09.1992. 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 the same was passed in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F 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, 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 the 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 25-F 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 Sections 25-F of the Act of 1947, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

10. 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 comp