JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman challenging the award dated 09.10.2003 passed by the learned Labour Court No.2 Jaipur, whereby though the termination of the petitioner was held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), the relief of reinstatement was declined. The petitioner has prayed that he may be reinstated in the services with 25 percent back wages and other consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was engaged by the respondent–department as a daily wager and thereafter, his services came to be terminated without issuance of notice or payment of retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947.

3. Thereafter, the dispute was raised and referred for adjudication before the Labour Court and upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Labour Court recorded a finding that the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F had not been complied with and, therefore, the retrenchment was illegal. However, taking into consideration the nature of engagement and other attendant circumstances, the Labour Court declined reinstatement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Labour Court recorded a categorical finding that the retrenchment was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, reinstatement ought to have followed as a natural and consequential relief and denial of the same defeats the very protection afforded by the statute.

5. It is further argued that illegality in termination renders the order void ab initio and the workman is entitled to restoration of service with continuity and consequential benefits. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Mali v. The Regional Officer, Archaeological Survey of India, 2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 637 to contend that violation of Section 25-F ordinarily results in reinstatement unless exceptional circumstances are made out.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned award and submits that the Labour Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in consonance with settled principles of law.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged purely as a daily wager without any formal recruitment process, for a limited duration and his engagement was neither against a sanctioned post nor pursuant to any regular selection procedure.

8. Learned counsel further submits that considerable time has elapsed since the date of termination and the nature of the establishment has undergone substantial changes, therefore, reinstatement at this stage would not only disturb administrative functioning but would also be inequitable. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Uttarakhand & Anr. v. Raj Kumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353 and Co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal Hussain v. Judge, Labour Court & Ors., 2025:RJ-JP:46321, to contend that reinstatement is no longer an automatic consequence of violation of Section 25-F, particularly in cases involving daily wagers or short-term engagements.

9. In light of the rival submissions, the principal issue which arises for consideration is, whether the learned Labour Court was justified in declining reinstatement despite holding that the retrenchment was in violation of 25F of the 1947 Act, or if the award should be altered to include monetary compensation instead.

10. There is no dispute with respect to the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the termination was effected without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and such non-compliance undoubtedly renders the retrenchment illegal.

11. The principal question emerging in the present case is now settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that reinstatement is not an automatic or mechanical conse