Violation of statutory mandate for termination requires reinstatement of workmen with continuity of service and back wages.

K.Kannan, J.

1. Both the writ petitions address the same issue relating to the same management where the Labour Court has found that the workmen had been terminated illegally without following the statutory mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but the Labour Court awarded compensation in both cases. In C.W.P. No. 12566 of 2004, the workman was reported to have been working as Helper between the period 02.01.1983 to 27.06.1985 and in C.W.P. No. 20966 of 2004, the workman was reported to have been working as a Washing Boy from 01.05.1985 to 30.06.1986 when, they had been terminated from services. The Labour Court also found violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act that while retaining the services of junior workmen, the workmen had alone been terminated from services.

2. The Labour Court found that although the terminations had been effected respectively in the year 1985 and 1986, the adjudications came about nearly 15 years later on account of the fact that the first reference had been withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition and such reference had been again obtained on fresh demand notice raised by the workmen. The explanation sought by the workmen was that they had been assured of employment if they withdraw their cases but since it was not given, they were forced to issue demand notice afresh and seek for redress. The Labour Court found the explanation to be worthy of acceptance but still having regard to the fact that they were unskilled workmen and several years had passed since the original orders of termination thought it fit to award Rs. 30,000/- as compensation in C.W.P. No. 12566 of 2004 and awarded Rs. 50,000/- in C.W.P.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen contended that if there had been violation of statutory mandate, the reinstatement shall be ordered unless the posts were not in existence or the workmen had been guilty of such misconduct that they were not entitled to reinstatement. Learned Senior Counsel, Sh. J.C. Verma refers to a decision, which this Court has rendered in Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another v. Ram Chander and another 2009(4) S.C.T. 665 : 2009(5) SLR 649 that has set down the necessary parameters that shall be attracted to a decision whether a person shall be reinstated in service or not. According to the said decision, if the termination was bad and if there had been no unreasonable delay on the part of the workman, with no contention emerging from the management that there were no such posts, the reinstatement ought to have been the normal corollary and the denial of employment would not be justified. There have been recent decisions of all the Courts in India taking a soft option of providing for compensation even when statutory violations of Section 25-F are noticed. In such cases, compensations are given. Monetary doles are hardly ever compensatory when an employment lies in waiting but it is denied for reasons, which is not wholly justified. If the workmen in thiscase were denied re-entry, they were denied employment not for any reasons for which the workmen are themselves responsible. If they should be denied at all, it should be because several years have been consumed in the process from the time when the termination took place and when a final adjudication is brought before this Court. Employment assures continuity of a mans esteem and when his services are put to action, it adds to the sum of a nations prosperity but compensation invariably is a dampener that is prone to misuse and extravagance. Even the amount of compensation that the Labour Court has granted does not stem from appreciation of any legal principles but seem more arbitrary than the result of application of any legal principle. It is not as if that there had been no legal principles enunciated by our Court. Learned Senior Counsel, Sh. J.C. Verma refers me two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation 198