The court established that in cases of wrongful termination, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate, and compensation instead of reinstatement may meet the ends of justice.

Judgment

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

The Workmen-Appellants have preferred these appeals challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12036 of 2008 modifying the award dated 14.09.2007 of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 54 of 2001 granting compensation of Rs.95,000/- to each of the 63 workmen in lieu of reinstatement in service without back wages.

2. Respondent no.1-Management had recruited the workmen-appellants as casual workers from the dates of their respective initial engagements in the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. The said Management having terminated the services of workmen-appellants without any individual notice or complying with the provisions of Sections 25A, 25F, 25N, 25G, 25H, 25-B (1), 25T, 25U and Section 31 (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and in violation of the provisions of the Orissa Government Press Industrial Employees Classification, Recruitment, Promotion, Conditions of Service and Appeal Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as, the 1978 Rules), the Management filed Memorandum No. 139/PSP dated 03.04.2001 declaring 50 casual workers out of 133 terminated, as continuing in service without any interruption, as a consequence whereof they were retained in service. The services of the rest 83 casual workers were terminated w.e.f. 01.04.2001.

3. The said 83 workmen including the present appellants raised industrial dispute through their Union-respondent no.2. Conciliation having failed, vide S.R.O. No. 697/2001 dated 2.11.2001, the State Government of Orissa referred the matter to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of the following issue:-

“Whether the demand of the technical printing Association regarding termination of services of Sri Mahendra Nayak and 82 other casual Helpers as per the list enclosed by the Director, Printing Stationery and Publication, Odisha, Cuttack w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 is legal and/or justified? If not what relief they are entitled to ?”

Accordingly, I.D. Case No. 54 of 2001 was registered in the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. The workmen-appellants filed their claim statement to declare the termination/retrenchment of 83 workmen illegal and further sought their reinstatement in service with back wages.

4. The Management-respondent no.1 filed its written statement raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the I.D. Case stating that it was not an industry as defined in the I.D. Act and that due to paucity of funds, it terminated the services of the workers w.e.f. 01.04.2001. But to avoid contempt proceeding, 50 casual workmen out of 133, who had obtained stay order earlier from Orissa Administrative Tribunal were allowed to continue in service and therefore compliance with Sections 25-F and 25-G of I.D. Act, 1947 was not required. With such contention, the Management sought dismissal of the I.D. Case.

5. The Labour Court after discussing contentions raised by the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the Management organization was an “Industry” within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of I.D. Act, the workers or the workmen were within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and answered the reference pursuant the award dated 14.09.2007 in I.D. Case No. 54 of 2001 that the termination of services of 63 workmen out of 83 was illegal and unjustified and that they were entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service, but without any back wages.

6. Challenging the said award dated 14.09.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 54 of 2001, respondent no.1-Management preferred W.P.(C) No. 12036 of 2008 before this Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to a definite conclusion that the workmen were daily wagers and they had not been engaged against regular posts. Consequently, this Court modified the impugned award in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and