Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition is directed against the ex parte award dated 6.5.1996 given by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 48 of 1995. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of the petitioner-employer terminating services of its workman Gulam Mustafa, respondent No. 2 in this writ petition was legal and just or not. Respondent No. 2 claimed that he was appointed as Casual Labour in October 1989 and later on he was kept on muster roll and worked continuously till May 1992, however his services were terminated on 1.6.1992 without payment of any compensation as required by Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. It is mentioned in the award that the employer did not appear in spite of sufficient service. (However petitioner had filed written statement, copy of which is Annexure-II to this writ petition. In the written petition it was stated that respondent No. 2 had not completed 240 days of work). Thereafter, on the basis of statement of the workman and the documents filed as Ex. W-1 to W-8, it was held that claim of the workman was proved. (The Labour Court did not even mention that workman had worked for 240 days). Ultimately termination was held to be illegal and it was held that workman was entitled for reinstatement. Through the interim order dated 24.7.1997 passed in this writ petition operation of the impugned award was stayed.

3. It was not the case of the workman that before his appointment any procedure was followed.

4. The Supreme Court in several authorities some of which are mentioned below has held that if the only defect in the termination order is non payment of retrenchment compensation as required by Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act (or Section 6 N of U.P.I.D. Act) then it is not always necessary to direct reinstatement with full back wages and that in such situation more often than not proper relief may be to award consolidated damages/compensation particularly when the employer is Government or Governmental agency and relevant rules have not been followed before appointment.

“Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U. P.”, AIR 2006 SC 2113

“Haryana State Electronics Devpt Corpn v. Mamni”, AIR 2006 SC 2427

“Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute”, AIR 2008 SC 1955

“Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another”, AIR 2009 SC 3004

5. In Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, AIR 2010 SC 2140, it has been held that if daily wagers had worked for 2 or 3 years and their services were terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation then consolidated damages should be awarded to them (Rs. 40,000/- to each of the workman was awarded in the said case). It has also been held that daily wager does not hold a post and cannot be equated with permanent employee. This view has been reiterated in Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, JT 2010(9) SC 262.

6. Accordingly, impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to the petitioner-employer to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the workman-respondent No. 2 within three months. The payment shall either be made through draft or deposited before the Industrial Tribunal for immediate payment to workman-respondent No. 2. If the amount is not paid/ deposited within three months then 2% per month interest shall also be payable thereupon since after three months until actual payment/deposit/ realisation.

7. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

—————