The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal termination of daily-wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic, and the court may award compensation in lieu of reinstatement based on the specific circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. Hearing convened through video conferencing mode.

The present intra-court appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order dated 8-05-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP-2805-2016 [Dilip Kumar Sharma vs. Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank & anr.], whereby the petition filed by the present appellant has been dismissed.

2. The factual expose' adumbrated in a nutshell, are that the appellant/petitioner challenged the award dated 7-7-2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur [hereinafter referred to as "the CGIT"]. By the impugned award the CGIT has answered the reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, "the ID Act"]. The reference was as under:

"(i). Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 15-5-1997 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. As per the impugned award, the termination of services of the appellant was held improper and illegal. Consequently, the CGIT directed payment of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the appellant.

4. It is put forth that the CGIT has committed mistake while passing the impugned award, not directing reinstatement of the appellant in service, but awarded him compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. Therefore, the appellant is claiming that the impugned award be modified to the extent, that instead of granting him compensation a direction be issued to the respondents to reinstatement him in service with all consequential benefits. The appellant has also claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, because during termination he was not engaged in any other service. To substantiate his submission the appellant placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80-Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324-Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, (2014) 4 SCR 875-Tapas Kumar Paul vs. BSNL, 2017 (4) MPLJ 141-Shamim Bano Vs. Manager, WP No. 6502/2010-Bhajanlal vs. Conservator of Forest and others, (1993) MPLJ 133-Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of M.P. and others and (2019) 4 SCC 307-Deputy Executive Engineer vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai.

5. The respondents/Bank submitted that the appellant was only a daily-wager. He failed to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days. He was not engaged against any vacant post and being a casual worker he was assigned the duties as per exigency. The alleged violation of Section 25-F, G, H of the ID Act is also denied by the respondents. It is also submitted by the respondents that the Government of India, Department of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India have imposed a complete ban on recruitment of staff. The respondent-Bank is, therefore, authorized to curtail the staff for avoiding the loss and, therefore, the appellant was asked to stop the work. It is put forth that the respondents have also preferred a petition challenging the award, whereby the compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Further, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not entitled to get any compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education, Sanstha, Nagpur vs. Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar, (2018) 12 SCC 294; District Development Officer and another vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298; Dharamraj Nivrutti Kasture vs. Chief Executive Officer and another, (2019) 11 SCC 289; and State of Uttarakhand and another vs. Rajkumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353.

6. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, the relevant facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder