Labour Courts may award compensation instead of reinstatement under unusual circumstances, adhering to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Since similar issues are involved in these two writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In W.P.(C) No.15857 of 2022 petitioners challenge Ext.P3 award of the Labour Court and in W.P.(C) No.15859 of 2022 petitioners challenge Ext.P4 award of the Labour Court. Munnakkal Juma Ath Palli Committee, represented by the 1^st petitioner, is a registered waqf under the Kerala State Waqf Board. The 2^nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.15857 of 2022 and her husband (2^nd respondent in W.P. (C) No.15859 of 2022) were engaged for running the canteen which is providing food to the students and faculties of the college run by the 1^st petitioner. There were several complaints against the party respondents regarding the inferior quality of foods, improper behaviour, etc. and thereupon they were placed under suspension. While so, they raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement in service and compensation. A detailed counter statement was filed and after considering the same, the Labour Court passed Exts.P3 award in I.D.No.1 of 2021 and P4 award in I.D.No.11 of 2021, which are impugned in these writ petitions, holding that before retrenching the party respondents, procedures under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes, 1947 have not been complied with, which provides the conditions for retrenchment of a workman. On the basis of the same, the Labour Court concluded that it is a case of denial of employment to the workman. Admittedly, even going by the averment of the petitioners, the canteen is already closed down. The contention raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the quantum of compensation granted is much more than the amount legally entitled to as per of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

3. It is the settled law that the Labour Courts have discretion to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if the circumstances of a particular case are unusual or exceptional so as to make reinstatement inexpedient or improper. Admittedly the canteen has already been closed down. The Labour Court relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. T.Santhosh Kumar Seal and others, AIR 2010 SC 2140 and in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh & others, 2011 KHC 4995 held that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of employee is found to be illegal and monetary compensation in cases of such nature is appropriate. The Labour Court also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in O.P.Bandari v. Indian Development Corporation and another , 1986 KLT OnLine 1441 SC , wherein it is held that compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary on the basis of the last pay and allowances drawn by the workman would be a reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court found that the party respondent in W.P.(C) No.15857 of 2022 was engaged by the management for nine years and four months and her monthly salary was Rs.12,866/-, which is not disputed by the management in their written statement, and held that one year salary would be sufficient as compensation instead of reinstatement and directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,54,392/- by the management establishment as compensation. Whereas, in the case of party respondent/workman in W.P(C) No.15859 of 2022 the Labour Court found that he was engaged by the management for nine years and four months and his monthly salary was Rs.25,790/-, which is also not disputed by the management in their written statement, and held that 12 months salary would be sufficient compensation instead of reinstatement and directed payment of an amount of Rs.3,09,480/- by the management establishment as compensation. There is a clear finding in the award of the Labour Court that proce