Monetary compensation is preferred over reinstatement for daily wage workers whose termination is found illegal, especially after significant delays.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) in LCR No.100162/2004 (162/2004) by which the lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been granted to each of the petitioners in lieu of their reinstatement in service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners were engaged as Baldar in the Office of the respondents and they have worked with effect from 01.01.1986 till 01.01.1991 and their services were terminated without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to them, which has resulted in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947').

3. Counsel submits that all the petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and established the fact that their services were terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Counsel submits that even the Labour Court has recorded a finding in this regard, but in spite of passing an order of their reinstatement in service, only a petty amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to each of the petitioners. Counsel submits that the aforesaid amount is quite inadequate and if the order of reinstatement of the petitioners is not passed by this Court, at least suitable and sufficient amount of compensation be awarded to them, looking to the length of service rendered by each of them, i.e., 5 years.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the industrial dispute was raised by the workmen after a delay of more than 12 years, hence under these circumstances, the Labour Court has not committed any error in not passing the order of reinstatement of the workmen and adequate amount of compensation has been awarded to them, in lieu of their reinstatement, which requires no interference of this Court.

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

6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioners have worked in the Office of the respondents with effect from 01.01.1986 till 01.01.1991. This fact is also not in dispute that their services were terminated on 01.01.1991. This fact is also not in dispute that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioners after a delay of more than 12 years before the Labour Court.

7. Considering the above material aspect of the matter, the Labour Court passed the impugned award, directing the respondents to pay a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners in lieu of their reinstatement in service and it was found that the termination order of the petitioners was passed by the State in gross violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is whether the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners is sufficient or the same is liable to be enhanced by this Court.

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