In cases of termination of daily wage employees in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, automatic reinstatement is not justified, and compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be more appropriate.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

To issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.119 of 2003 and quash its award dated 15.11.2011.

2. The second respondent employee joined the petitioner bank as Casual sub-staff on daily wage basis on 30.10.1998. Initially, she was paid Rs.50/- per day which was subsequently increased to Rs.60/- which was the last drawn wages. The service of the second respondent was utilized by the petitioner bank at their Besant Nagar Branch both as Sweeper and Scavenger on part time basis. According to the petitioner, her services were continued from 30.10.1998 onwards till 29.1.2002 with few artificial breaks in service. On 29.1.2012 when the second respondent was terminated by the Branch Manager of the petitioner bank on the basis of oral instructions, the bank did not comply with the mandatory provision of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). Therefore, the second respondent employee raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(A) of the Act, challenging her termination. The said dispute was referred to before the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order dated 13.6.2003. After reference, a claim statement was filed on behalf of the second respondent before the first respondent Tribunal in I.D.No.119 of 2003. In response to the claim statement, the petitioner bank also filed a counter statement.

3. In the proceedings before the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the employee examined herself as WW1 and gave evidence about nature of work performed by her and the number of days she worked in Besant Nagar Branch of the petitioner bank. On behalf of the petitioner bank, one Management witness (MW.1) was examined. Several documents were marked both on behalf of the employee and the Management.

4. In fact, in the proceedings before the first respondent Tribunal, an order was passed in I.A.No.47 of 2004 in I.D.No.119 of 2003, directing the petitioner bank to produce Muster Roll for the period from 1998 to 2002, during which period, the second respondent was employed. However, in spite of the order, no Muster Roll was produced by the Management. In the above circumstances, the first respondent Tribunal passed an award on 19.12.2005, ordering reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service and also with 50% back wages along with other benefits.

5. As against the award, the petitioner bank filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10727 of 2006 before this Court. By order dated 26.4.2001, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition, by setting aside the award passed by the first respondent Tribunal insofar as it relates to the findings given by the Industrial Tribunal with regard to non-production of relevant records by the petitioner bank and consequent adverse inference drawn against the petitioner bank with regard to number of days worked by the employee concerned. Relevant portion of the order passed by this court as found in paragraph 20, is extracted as under:

"20. It is also noted that even though the relevant documents had been produced by the petitioner Bank, they had not been marked, either by the petitioner Bank or by the second respondent. It is also noted that some of the documents had been verified by the learned counsel for the second respondent, like the consolidated statements and the vouchers for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. In such circumstances, without going into the other issues raised before this Court, the award of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, made in I.D.No.119 of 2003, is set aside, only in so far as it relates to the findings given by the first respondent relating to the non-production of the relevant records by the petitioner Bank and the consequent adverse inference drawn by the first respondent, with regard to the