For a daily-wage worker, illegal termination based on procedural defects like violation of Section 25-F does not automatically entitle the workman to reinstatement and back wages. Courts may substitute the relief with reasonable monetary compensation, especially considering short tenure and significant delay in raising an industrial dispute.

ORDER

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the award dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior (M.P.) whereby, finding violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the respondent No.1, the reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with 50% back wages w.e.f. 16.09.1990 to 16.09.1996 has been directed. The Labour Court further held respondent No.1 to be entitled to full back wages w.e.f. 22.11.1996, treating him to be in continuous employment from 27.09.1996.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:-

3.1 The respondent No.1 claiming himself to be engaged as daily wager by the petitioner w.e.f. January, 1986 to 31.03.1987 and further claiming his discontinuation w.e.f. March, 1987, approached the Conciliation Officer seeking reference of the dispute to the Labour Court in the year 1993.

3.2 On the reference so made, the respondent No.1 initially filed a claim before the Labour Court challenging his termination. The Labour Court, passed an ex-parte award dated 22.11.1996 whereby, the respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated without back wages. The ex-parte award dated 22.11.1996 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No.541/2002, which came to be allowed vide order dated 18.7.2006 whereby. while setting aside the ex-parte award dated 22.11.1996, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties and also lead evidence. This Court, while disposing the writ petition observed that during the pendency of remand proceedings, the workman would to be continued in service.

3.3 Pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court in W.P. No.541/2002, the Labour Court, decided the claim afresh and on the basis of the evidence recorded, passed the award dated 21.12.2012, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the award dated 21.12.2012 primarily on the ground that the respondent No.1 claimed that he was engaged as a daily wager by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Up-Mandi, Mohana, District Gwalior whereas, according to the petitioner, no such entity exists and only Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Lashkar, District Gwalior, is in existence. The respondent No.1 was never engaged by the petitioner. The documents of muster-roll which were filed by the respondent No.1 showing his attendance before the Labour Court were not the documents of the petitioner. The petitioner produced the muster-roll of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Lashkar District Gwalior, wherein, the name of the respondent No.1 does not find mention. However, the said documents filed by the petitioner as Ex-D/1 to Ex-D/9 were illegally not permitted to be taken on record on the ground that the same does not relate to the place where the respondent No.1 was engaged.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Labour Court after publication of the award dated 21.12.2012 permitted amendment in the cause title of the award vide order dated 5.4.2013 whereby, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mohana was removed and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Lashkar was incorporated. Further, the Assistant Deputy Inspector, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Up-Mandi, Mohana, District Gwalior w