Reinstatement is not automatic in cases of delayed disputes; monetary compensation may be awarded instead, especially for procedural violations under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The instant petition has been preferred challenging the impugned award dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Labour Court-II, Jaipur (for short, 'Labour Court') by which the termination order of the respondent was set aside with direction to the petitioner to reinstate the workman (hereinafter referred to a respondent) with continuity of service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the workman were terminated from 09.08.1984 and the dispute was raised by him after a considerable time of more than 20 years but without considering material aspect of the matter, the impugned award has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute has been raised after a considerable delay, and under such circumstances adequate amount of compensation could be granted in favor of the workman in lieu of reinstatement. Hence, modification in the award is required.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposed the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the workman was appointed as Cattle Guard on 01.11.1979 and without giving any compensation amount, his service was terminated on 09.08.1984, in contravention with Provisions contained under Section 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947'). Counsel for the workman submits that under these circumstances the industrial disputes was raised by the workman before the Labor Court and the Labour Court has passed a justified award directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity in service.

4. Heard and considered the material placed on the record and perused the material available on the record.

5. This fact is not in dispute that the workman worked with the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1979 till 09.08.1984 as Cattle Guard, this fact is not in dispute that his services terminated on 09.08.1984 and the industrial dispute was raised by the workman after a delay of 20 years before the labour court on account of his services being terminated in the violation of provision contained under Section 25-F, 25-G And 25-H of the Act of 1947. Now the question which remain for consideration is whether the workman is entitled to get the reinstatement in service after a delay of considerable time or he could be awarded an adequate amount of compensation.

6. In spite of passing the order of reinstatement the labour court could have granted lump sum amount of compensation to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement as per reason and judgment passed by the Apex court as well as by this Court which has been held in number of cases that after termination if it is found to be illegal then reinstatement is not a rule of thumb under such circumstances of lump sum amount of compensation can be granted in lieu of compensation.

7. The Apex Court in the case of below cited judgment:-

8. 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 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 vs. Shankar Shetty (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 under in para 33 and 34:-

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be i