The main legal point established is that in cases of termination of daily-wage workers due to procedural defects, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and monetary compensation may be awarded to meet the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

1. This misc. petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by Labour Court, Sagar in Coc-A 13/ID Act/2015/reference, by which the termination of the services of the respondent has been held to be bad in law on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and has directed for the reinstatement and payment of 10% of the arrears of salary by way of compensation.

2. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the respondent had not completed 240 days of his service in a calendar year. Furthermore, it is submitted that in case of termination of a daily wage employee, the reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the worker should be given monetary compensation, which will meet the ends of justice. It is submitted that since the Court below has come to a conclusion that the termination of the respondent is bad in law on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, therefore, it should not have directed for reinstatement, and could have awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner did not file any document to prove that the respondent has not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioner was in possession of every document and he could have proved that the petitioner has not worked for the statutory period. It is well established principle of law that if a party, who is in possession of best evidence, fails to produce the same then, an adverse inference can be drawn. Furthermore, the finding recorded by the lower court is a finding of fact and in absence of any perversity, the same may not be interfered with.

4. So far as the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat, decided on 23.09.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6890/2022.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. So far as the finding given by the Court below that the termination of the respondent was illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation is concerned, the petitioner being the employer was in possession of every document to show that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days. Admittedly, the petitioner did not bring any evidence on record to rebut the claim of the respondent that he has worked for more than 240 days. It is well established principle of law that if a party is in possession of best evidence and fails to produce the same, then an adverse inference can be drawn. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below did not commit any mistake by holding that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days.

7. So far as the question of reinstatement with back wages with compensation of 10% amount is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs.Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 has held as under:-

"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of