Reinstatement for daily wage workers is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering service duration and delay in raising disputes.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri. Mahesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.05.2016, passed by the Labour Court, Faizabad thereby allowing the claim preferred by respondent no. 1 - workman against his termination and has awarded reinstatement alongwith 40% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent-workman was engaged in April, 2003 by the Zila Gramodyog Officer on daily wages on the post of Peon/Chaukidar. It is stated that though no appointment letter was given to the workman but he was engaged on daily wage basis and also was not selected after following any procedure. The respondent no. 1 worked till January, 2004. Against the workman's oral termination, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman stating that he was recruited on daily wage basis by the Zila Gramodyog Officer by the then Chief Executive Officer - Umesh Chandra Tiwari and his services were terminated on 03.07.2004 by an oral order of Manager - Ajay Singh. It was further stated that the workman was paid Rs. 47.50/- per day as daily wages and lastly at the time of termination he was receiving Rs. 64.50 per day as wages.

4. Before the Labour Court the respondent - workman has stated that the petitioners while terminating his services have violated provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1947") inasmuch as no notice nor wages in lieu of notice was given to him prior to his retrenchment. He has worked for 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment. The workman in support of his claim has filed the muster roll for the period he had worked with the petitioners to demonstrate that employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and workman and also that he had worked for 240 days in the calendar year from the date of his retrenchment. The notice was issued to the petitioners, who participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The aspect of employer-employee relationship was never denied by the petitioners. Further muster roll was also produced by the petitioners which demonstrated that the workman had worked for the months of May, June, July and December, 2003 and January, February, 2004. This aspect of the matter was never disputed by the petitioners before the Labour Court.

5. The Labour Court after duly considering the evidence filed by the respective parties was of the considered view that the employee worked for 306 days in the calendar year prior to his retrenchment and also that provisions of Section 6N of the Act, 1947 were not complied with by the petitioners and hence the claim deserves to succeed. Accordingly, while allowing the claim the Labour Court held the order of retrenchment to be illegal and was set aside granting relief of reinstatement alongwith 40% back wages.

6. The petitioners before this Court only assail the relief granted to the respondent-workman. It is submitted that the workman worked only for 306 days, which is less then a year and accordingly the relief of reinstatement should not have been allowed. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttrakhand and Another v. Raj Kumar, 2019 (14) SCC 353, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhooramal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, District Development Officer & Another v. Satish Kantilal Amerelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 and Chief Executive Officer, U.P. Khadi Board v. Nikhil Singh and Another - Writ C No. 15222 of 2016 (decided on 09.08.2022).

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-workman has approached the Labour