O R D E R

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/workman, assailing the award dated 19.08.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi, in ID No. 30 of 2010.

2. Briefly stated, the workman was appointed as a technician on 01.03.2007 and worked with the respondent. On 01.09.2009, his services were terminated by the respondent. Aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute and approached the Labour Commissioner, however, upon failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which held the termination to be illegal and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the workman.

3. Learned counsel for the workman submits that although the Tribunal has held the workman’s termination to be illegal, it failed to grant reinstatement with back wages, which is the normal rule in such cases. He further submits that the workman had been continuously working with the respondent since 01.03.2007 and his services were terminated in 2009 without any complaint or misconduct. It is contended that the workman has been facing serious financial hardship and that the grant of a mere compensation of Rs.50,000/- is inadequate. Even the said sum is stated to be unpaid.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned award does not warrant interference, as the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant compensation instead of reinstatement. It is well settled that compensation can be awarded where deemed appropriate. In the present case, considering the lapse of time since 2009, the nature of employment and surrounding circumstances, the Tribunal rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Tribunal held that the workman had not resigned from service and that his services were illegally terminated, primarily because the management failed to discharge its burden of proving that he had voluntarily resigned after accepting full and final settlement. The management failed to produce any resignation letter, and on account of such non-production, the Tribunal drew an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act and accepted the workman’s case that no resignation had been tendered. The Tribunal further held that the management had not paid retrenchment compensation as mandated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and consequently, the termination was held to be illegal.

7. Notably, instead of granting reinstatement, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the workman, observing that reinstatement is not automatic merely because termination is held to be illegal. Further, the Tribunal noted the management’s contention that restructuring/sale of shares had resulted in retrenchment of workers. Since no retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had been paid, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

8. In ‘Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Boar'd¹(2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545, the Supreme Court clarified that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and in appropriate cases, compensation may be granted instead, relevant paragraph has been reproduced hereinunder:-

7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back