ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against award dated 30.11.2019 passed by Labour Court Court, Sagar (M.P.) in COCA No.131/2017/I.D. Act Reference Reference by which the respondent Workman orkman has been directed to be reinstated with 10% of backwages by way of compensation.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that Workman orkman raised a dispute and accordingly, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Commissioner by his letter dated 13.10.2017 preferred a Reference to the Labour Court on the question "as to whether the respondent comes under the definition of Workman? If yes, then whether the termination of services of Workman was proper or not? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled and what instructions are are to be given to the employers?" It is submitted that it was the claim of Workman that he was appointed on the post of Peon with effect from July, 2014. He was being paid only Rs.2000/ Rs.2000/- per month. His performance was upto the satisfaction of the officers and for every calendar year, he had worked for 240 days. Since the Workman had raised a demand for payment of equal pay therefore, therefore, the services of Workman were terminated by the employer by verbal order dated 2.6.2017, whereas no reasons were assigned to the Workman and no notice was given. Even the retrenchment compensation was also not given. The petitioner filed a reply and denied the statement of claim claim. The Workman examined himself, whereas petitioner did not examine anybody. The Labour Court after considering the evidence came to a conclusion that Workman had worked for 240 days in every calendar year, therefore, termination termination of his services in violation of provisions of ection 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act cannot be upheld and thus, his termination was held to be illegal and he was directed to be reinstated with 10% of backwages by way of compensation.

3. Challenging the the order passed by the Labour Court, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that Labour Court has committed a material illegality by holding that Workman had worked for 240 days in every calendar year. It is further submitted that even otherwise the Labo Labour Court should have granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that on 27.11.2019, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and in spite of order dated 30.10.2018 10.2018 passed by the Labour Court, petitioner did not produce any document and accordingly, by order dated 08.02.2019, it was directed by the Labour Court that an adverse inference will be drawn against petitioner.

5. So far as the compensation in lieu of of reinstatement is concerned, the counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutchh District Panchayat, decided on 23.9.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6890/2022.

6. Heard the learned counsel for parties.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte parte. The petitioner did not lead any evidence. In spite of a direction given by the Labour Court, petitioner did not produce any documents and therefore, the Labour Court urt had rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner.

8. Under these circumstances, in absence of any contest by petitioner before the Labour Court, Court it cannot be held that findings given by the Labour Court to the effect that the Workman Work had worked for 240 days in every calendar year. was erroneous and accordingly, the said finding is hereby affirmed.

9. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the Workman was entitled for reinstatement with 10% of backwages by way of compensation tion or not?

10. The Supreme Court in the case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v.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 principl