Reinstatement of workmen after illegal termination is not automatic; monetary compensation may be granted instead based on specific circumstances and legal precedents.

ORDER :

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts pleaded and the prayer mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14231/2021 are taken into consideration.

3. The instant writ petitions have been preferred with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this petition may be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned Award dated 26.7.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur in case No. ITR 55/93 as also the directions given therein against the petitioners being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable be quashed and set aside.

This Hon’ble Court may also be graciously pleased to pass any other and further order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humble non-applicant petitioners.”

4. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 26.07.2021, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) in ITR Case No.55/1993.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an industrial dispute was raised by the workmen through Union before the Tribunal, by way of filing a statement of claim, wherein it was pleaded that the workmen were engaged to promote a program, for utilization of fertilizer, run by the petitioner-company. Counsel submits that in the claim petition, it was pleaded that services of the petitioners were terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act of 1947”). Counsel submits that in the statement of claim, the contractor- M/s Grain Conservation and Warehousing Industries Private Limited was impleaded as party-respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as “the Contractor”) due to the engagement of workmen with the said Contractor and they were not in employment of the petitioner-company. Counsel submits that when the notices of the aforesaid claim were issued, the Contractor submitted its separate reply, wherein they admitted that the claim filed by the workmen through its Union was invalid, as the contract was executed by the Contractor with the petitioner-company on 09.06.1968 and the same remained continued till 30.06.1992 and after expiry of the said period, the contract was not extended for further duration and thereafter, the agreement between the petitioner-company and Contractor came to an end on 23.07.1992. Counsel submits that at the time of closure of the contract, the provisions contained under Section 25 - F of the Act of 1947 were complied with and the payment of compensation and notice pay was made to the workmen through Demand Draft and the same was accepted by the workmen. Counsel submits that despite getting the aforesaid benefits, the dispute was raised by the workmen before the Tribunal through their Union which was not tenable, but this fact was overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. Counsel submits that when this fact has been established on record, not only by the Contractor in his reply, but also by some of the workmen by way of their admission in cross-examination, then there was no reason or occasion available with the Tribunal to pass the impugned award directing the petitioner to reinstate the workmen along-with 75% back wages. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workmen opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the services of the workmen were hired through Contractor and the payment of salary among other beefits was made available by the petitioner-company. Counsel submits that the company is still