The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of unfair labor practices, reinstatement should be the rule, and compensation should be granted only in exceptional cases.

SABINA, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the award dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-6).

2. Respondent No. 2 had raised an Industrial dispute challenging his termination by serving a demand notice. The said dispute raised by respondent No. 2 was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar by the appropriate Government.

3. The case of respondent No. 2, in brief, was that he was employed as a Security Guard with the petitioner-Management on 12.06.2009. However, services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on 18.04.2011 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short).

4. The case of the petitioner-Management, on the other hand, was that respondent No. 2 had worked with them on purely part-time basis. Respondent No. 2 was employed on contract basis and his services came to an end on completion of contract period.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal:-

"1. Whether there was relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the managements? OPW.

2. Whether the services of the workman have been illegally terminated by the managements? OPM.

3. Relief."

6. Parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleas.

7. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 01.03.2016 answered the reference in favour of respondent No. 2 Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-Management.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2 had worked with the petitioner-Management on part-time basis. Hence, it was not a fit case where the workman was liable to be reinstated in service. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on B.S.N.L. vs. Bhurumal, 2014 (3) SCT 49, wherein, it was held as under:-

"It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Thus Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of