The court established the principle that reinstatement is not necessary in all cases and that compensation can be granted in lieu of reinstatement, considering the nature of work and the length of time since the termination of services.

2. The appellant Management is aggrieved against the order dated the March, 2004 passed in CWJC No. 3205 of 1997(R), whereby the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad dated 12th May, 1997 in Reference Case No.130 of 1990 have been upheld.

3. The Tribunal has found that it is the case of the workmen that they were engaged for providing the water to the employees of the appellant Company which they used to carry on their shoulder with the help of one BHAR , which is a mode of carrying the watter i.e at a time two buckets of water with one bamboo long or short stick and carrying it on shoulder. They were initially engaged in the year 1979 and in the year 1988, specifically from 1st February, 1988, they were denied the wages and also work. In view of the above, following issue was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication :

“Whether the action of the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of CCL Ltd. P.O. Kuju, Dist. Hazaribagh by not regularizing S/Sri Kalicharan Mahato and 54 other workmen as mentioned in the list attached with Annexure and also not making payment of their wages individually for the period from 1.2.1988 to 16.2.1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?”

4. The contention of the Management before the Tribunal was that it was the temporary work for supplying of water to the employees of the appellant Company , who were residing in the appellant's Colonies and with the laying down of pipelines for providing water to the house of the employees , this system was abolished and these workers were working for a few hours in a day only, that too, through Contractor.

5. The Labour court after considering the evidence held that the work was not through the Contractor and the work was of the permanent nature. The workers completed more than 240 days in any calender year and they work for a very long period , may be from 1979 to 1985 or not less than to complete 240 days in a calender year. Since, the order of termination of service of the workmen found to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal directed the appellant Management to give notional reinstatement and regularization to all the workmen, who are 54 in numbers from 16th February, 1988 and declared that the concerned workmen are entitled for back wages from the date of issuance of Reference i.e. 4th June, 1990 with 40% of full back wages and other benefits.

6. This award was challenged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, though tried to challenge the award on the ground that the work was taken from these workmen through Contractor as well as that the work was of the temporary in nature and, that too, for some hours in a day only. But, after going through the reasons given in the impugned award, we are of the considered opinion that no interference in that finding of fact is required and the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the award cannot be interfered.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered that in this fact situation whether reinstatement could have been compensated by the award of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant Management submitted that in view of catena of decisions of the various High Courts as well as this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter where the employee has not worked since 1988 and award was stayed by this Court, so far as reinstatement is concerned, then in that situation the effect to the award can be given today in the year 2012 and whether it will be just, proper and equitable to continue the order of reinstatement and whether compensation in lieu of the reinstatement can be passed.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent workmen vehemently submitted that fundamental rule is to reinstate in a case when the order of ter