107

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the ex parte Award dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Industrial Tribunal (respondent no.2), wherethrough, the reference was answered in favour of the workman, and he was held entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back wages (last drawn salary of Rs.6763/-), from the date of his termination, i.e. 22.06.2011 till his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. He also seeks quashing of order dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure P-4), vide which the application preferred by the petitioner-management for setting aside ex parte Award, has dismissed.

2. During the pendency of the instant petition, since respondent no.l-workman, has attained the age of superannuation, the issue of reinstatement has lost its significance, therefore, this Court refrains from adjudicating upon the relief of reinstatement, as granted vide impugned Award (supra).

3. The only issue that now survives for consideration is, as to whether, the services of respondent no.1-workman, were terminated illegally, without making compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not? If, the answer is in affirmative, then what relief, in lieu of reinstatement, would respondent no.1-workman, be entitled to?

4. From a perusal of the entire record, it transpires that respondent no.1-workman, was appointed as EDM Operator, on 05.04.2008, by the petitioner-management, and an appointment letter to that effect was also duly issued. The services of respondent no.1-workman, were terminated on 22.06.2011. Since the petitioner management were proceeded against ex parte, the evidence produced by respondent no.1-workman, was found sufficient by the learned Industrial Tribunal, to establish that he had continuously worked for 240 days. Accordingly, the learned Industrial Tribunal, rightly concluded that there was a clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, answer to the first query is in 'affirmative'.

5. The petitioner-management has failed to satisfy this Court, so to warrant interference into the well reasoned Award (supra). Even reasons assigned in the application moved by the petitioner-management for setting aside the ex parte Award, are not sufficient, for this Court, to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-4).

6. The question that now arises for consideration is, what relief respondent No.1-workman is entitled to?

7. In order to adjudicate the issue (supra), it would be apposite to refer to certain authoritative pronouncements on the subject. In “Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another”, 2009 (3) SCT 790, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Further held that compensation instead of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. Moreover, the award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers was not found to be proper and instead compensation was awarded. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder:-

“7. It is true that 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 long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a