Reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of illegal termination. In cases involving short-duration contractual employment, courts exercise discretion to award fair monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, considering the nature of the engagement and the time elapsed since the termination.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to admit/allow this writ petition and be further pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:-

(i) declaring the impugned award dated 21.7.2017 passed by the learned Labour Court Bhratpur to the extent it declined to order reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity and back wages as illegal and unconstitutional and the same may kindly be quashed and set-aside /modified suitably;

(ii) directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and full back wages;

(iii) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of humble petitioner including award of cost of this writ petition."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the order in case of Principal Medical and Health Officer, General Hospital, Alwar Vs. Bharat Singh and Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12803/2019, decided on 30.01.2023, has submitted that the Labour Court has decided the issue of termination in favor of the petitioner as the termination order dated 01.08.1997 was declared as unfair and illegal, but it has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. He submitted that there is no fault of the petitioner in pursuing the remedy therefore, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. He further referred judgment in case Amit Kumar Dubey vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Company Limited and another , Civil Appeal No. 1198/2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 20902/2024 and further followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12614/2025, Radheyshyam Vs. Social Welfare Officer decided on 16.09.2025 and submitted that in case reinstatement is not granted, then the writ petition be disposed of in light of aforementioned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Labour Court has considered a fact that the petitioner was engaged for a very short period and same was not a regular appointment. He further submitted that as per record, the petitioner has worked for 167 days in contractual capacity and there is no written agreement between them. He also submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court about the duration is contrary to the record submitted by the respondents. At last, he submitted that for a work of shorter duration, a person is not entitled for reinstatement. He also submitted that the respondents have not challenged the award passed on 21.07.2017, but a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in such circumstances is sufficient and the petitioner is not entitled for any other relief.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged in contractual capacity as Electrical Lineman and his services were terminated on 01.08.1997. A reference is made to the Labour Court as conciliation between the parties have failed. Learned Labour Court in its award dated 21.07.2017 has declared the termination order of the petitioner dated 01.08.1997 as unfair and illegal. The respondents have not challenged the award. As per Labour Court, the petitioner has worked from 01.08.1996 to 31.07.1997 and the period is one