Compensation, rather than reinstatement, is appropriate for daily wage workers whose termination is found illegal due to procedural defects, especially when no mala fide intent is established.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Present writ petition has been directed at the instance of the petitioner - workman against the award dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-12), passed by respondent No.1 - Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hisar (in short, 'learned Tribunal') whereby, relief of reinstatement with continuity in service along with full back-wages, has been declined to the petitioner - workman, and instead, a lump-sum compensation has been provided.

2. Reference under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'ID Act'), has been answered partly in favour of the petitioner - workman (presently being represented through his legal representatives), by observing that the termination of service of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. However, without order for reinstatement, lump-sum amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rs. 1,30,000/- + Rs. 10,000/-), has been awarded.

3. While referring to the letter dated 16.10.2002 (Annexure P- 4), counsel for the petitioner submits through said letter, respondent - Management (Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.), had directed Manager to disengage the petitioner with immediate effect. Subsequent thereto, vide leter dated 29.10.2002 (Annexure P-5), respondent - Management withdrew the letter of disengagement. Therefore, counsel submits that undisputedly, the petitioner worked with the respondent - Management from 07.08.1987 to 01.09.2010 i.e. almost, about 13 years. Therefore, summarizing his submissions, counsel submits that awarding of the amount of the compensation as Rs. 1,40,000/-, is very meager one.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once, the learned Tribunal reaches to the conclusion that there is complete violation of Section 25F of the ID Act, and said part of the finding is never challenged by the respondent - Management, there is nothing left with the respondent - Management to agitate against the claim of the workman, or even, to say that the workman is not entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition.

5. I have gone through the submissions addressed before this Court as well as the reasons recorded by learned Tribunal in the impugned award. This Court is of the view that in the writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only error of law, if curable, can be examined, and not the error of fact. Said observation is supported with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan; 1964 (AIR) Supreme Court 477 : Law Finder Doc Id #81222.

6. Moreover, there being no challenge to the award dated 12.03.2013, at the instance of the respondent - Management, there is no point in reopening the findings recorded by learned Tribunal. Therefore, the only issue pending adjudication before this Court is whether the compensation amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rs. 1,30,000/- + Rs. 10,000/-) reasonable or not ?

7. Undoubtedly, considering the length of the service, of about 13 years, rendered by the workman during his lifetime, would be a guiding factor for deciding the lump-sum amount of compensation, or considering its enhancement.

8. This Court is guided with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in LPA No.1334 of 2009, titled as, "Deputy General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sangrur v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and another" decided on 30.01.2014, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, held as under:-

" Faced with the situation, counsel for the appellant, by placing reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in 'B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal' Civil Appeal No. 10957 of 2013, decided on 11.12.2013, argued that the Labour Court was not justified in ordering reinstatement in service of the respondent-workman and payment of full back wages. Rather compensation should have been awarded. It