IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that reinstatement is not an automatic remedy for violations of employment termination laws; compensation may be more appropriate based on employment duration and nature.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Diptiman Singh for the respondent No. 2-M/s Triveni Engineering Works Ltd., Sugar Unit-Khatauli, District-Muzaffar Nagar.

2. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 19.2.2014 whereby the workmen have been awarded a lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- except petitioner No. 1-Shri Narendra Kumar who has been awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 6524/-.

3. The employer in this case is a sugar industry and it engages labour/workmen on the basis of categorization made in the Standing Order.

4. The case is of the petitioners is that they were engaged by the industry and work was taken from them and despite the fact that they had completed 240 days work, their services were orally terminated in the year 1992 without following due process of law and in violation of the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act-1947 (in short 'the Act-1947').

5. Reference was made to the Labour Court and the case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 38 of 1999 as the leading case alongwith various connected matters and the Labour Court, by impugned award dated 31.5.2002, held that termination of services of the workmen was contrary to law and relief in terms of reinstatement of all the 10 workmen with continuity in service alongwith 50% backwages was awarded. The employer-M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd., Sugar Unit-Khatauli, District-Muzaffarnagar challenged the aforesaid award by filing Writ Petition No. 35990 of 2002 (Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P. Meerut and others) which was allowed by this Court by order dated 9.4.2007 wherein this Court observed that the workmen had failed to discharge the primary obligation of establishing necessary facts for applicability of Section 6-N of the Act-1947 and, therefore, the award was found to be unsustainable.

6. This Court, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the award, remanded the matter to the Labour Court to re-examine the issue as to whether conditions required for applicability of Section 6-N of the Act had been fulfilled or not and to make its award accordingly.

7. Another part of the order dated 9.4.2007 passed by this Court is that the nature of services of the workmen was also gone into by this Court and it was observed that action of the employer in refusing work to the workmen w.e.f. 7.3.1992 cannot be said to be illegal, particularly in the facts when the workmen did not contend that they were permanent employees of the industry.

8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after remand, the Labour Court has recorded a clear finding in favour of the petitioners-workmen that they had completed 240 days of working in the industry, however, the Labour Court, instead of directing reinstatement with backwages, has erred in awarding compensation only. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Ltd., 2014 (11) SCC 85, in which, the Supreme Court, after considering various Authorities, laid down the principles of award with backwages alongwith relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel further argued that insofar as aspect relating to gainful employment is concerned, the Labour Court has recorded a perverse finding that petitioner No. 1-workman did not state that he was unemployed and that he could not get any work. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to the award and oral statement of petitioner No. 1-workman.

9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the award stating that the award has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the Writ Court in the previous round of litigation and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned award.

10. Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the