Restoration of employment is mandated when termination is found illegal, unless compelling reasons are provided for denial.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer:

“1-Quashed and set aside the award dated 17-08-2022 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur to the extent of granting lump sum amount 1,25,000/- instead of reinstatement with full back wages continuity. 2-Directed to the respondents to reinstate back the petitioner in service and also paid full back wages from the date of illegal termination to the petitioner with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

3-Further directed to the respondents, if reinstatement in not possible then appropriate compensation Rs.10,00,000/- be granted to the petitioners in placed of reinstatement.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager in the respondent organization in the month of March 2000 on a salary of Rs. 1500 per month. The services of the petitioner continued and his last payout was Rs. 4000 per month. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 19.07.2007. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Department and on 30.11.2010, the dispute was referred by the Labour Department to the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur.

3. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence and material on record, found that the order of termination dated 18.07.2007 is bad and illegal and not tenable. The Labour Court also held that the respondent employer has not complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but instead of reinstatement, the petitioner was granted compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest of 9%.

4. After filing of the writ petition by the workman, notice was issued to the respondent, and despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. Considering that no one has appeared despite service, the matter is posted for final hearing.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Armed Forces Ex- Officers Multi Services Co-operative Society v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) reported as (2022) 7 Supreme 124, submitted that when the termination was found illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, then the duty lies upon the Labour Court to examine whether reinstatement is possible or not. He further submitted that the Labour Court, without considering the legal position, has drawn a conclusion that reinstatement is not possible. He further submitted that the post is still lying vacant and the petitioner raised the dispute soon after his termination from the post. He also submitted that the petitioner has already rendered four years of service in the respondent organization and without any compensatory payment, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner.

6. He also referred to the judgment in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. and Another , Civil Appeal No…./2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20902/2024, order dated 29.01.2025, and submitted that when the termination is found illegal, particularly in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the Court is duty-bound to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year. He also submitted t