Monetary compensation can be awarded instead of reinstatement for daily wage workers whose termination is found illegal due to procedural defects, as reinstatement is not automatic.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 08.11.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR Case No.212/1991 by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner-workman has been partly allowed while setting aside his termination order dated 01.11.1988 and a direction has been issued to the respondents to pay lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the month of June, 1987 by the respondents and his services were taken till October, 1988 and all of sudden, his services were terminated on 01.11.1988 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation, which has resulted in violation of mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’). Learned counsel submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by way of filing statement of claim and the petitioner has established this fact on the record that he has worked with the respondents for more than 240 days in a calendar year and his termination order was passed by the respondents in utter violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submits that this fact was appreciated by the Labour Court while quashing termination order of the petitioner but while passing final award, a petty amount i.e. Rs. 40,000/- only has been awarded, which requires suitable enhancement by this Court looking to the length of service of the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that looking to the nature of work and length of service of the petitioner, sufficient amount of compensation has been awarded by the Labour Court, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the respondents engaged the petitioner as Beldar in the month of June, 1987 and he was allowed to work on the said post till October, 1988 and his services were terminated vide order dated 01.11.1988 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation. This fact has been established on the record by the petitioner that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year with the respondents even then looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than one year, a petty amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded.

6. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is whether the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner is sufficient or the same is liable to be enhanced by this Court.

7. 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.

8. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

9. In Incharge Officer and Ors. Vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

10. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as unde