Roshan Lal @ Billu Ram v. The Presiding Officer

Judgment

#1. Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge has been held entitled for grant of whereby, the appellant-workman has been held entitled for grant of whereby, the appellant lump-sum compensation of Rs.2 sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in in lieu of reinstatement.

#2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-workman The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as a daily-wager in the Department of F was employed as a daily wager in the Department of Forest in the workman worked in various month of January, 1993. The appellant-workman worked in various month of January nurseries of nurseries of the abovesaid department. The service department. The services of appellant-workman workman were terminated on terminated on 08.07.2004. As per the appellant-workman workman as he had completed more than 240 days had completed more than 240 days in service in the preceding preceding 12 months from the date of the date of his termination. As such, he was entitled for protection under Section 25 he was entitled for ection 25-F of the Industrial -1- LPA No.1531 No.1531-2024 (O&M) Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As per the Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as appellant-workman compensation was given at the workman, as no notice and compensation was given at the time of termination/retrenchment termination/retrenchment, the termination , the termination/retrenchment was law. Aggrieved against abovesaid action of respondent-management in terminating the respondent the service of the appellant- workman, the appellant-workman served a demand notice, wherein, workman, the workman served a demand notice, wherein, it was the case of the case of the appellant-workman that as the appellant workman that as the appellant-workman had worked for more than 240 days in the had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination, and as no notice the date of no notice and compensation was given by the respondent-management in terms of given by the respondent in terms of Section 25-F of the at the time of termination/retrenchment, as such, appellant- at the time of termination/retrenchment, Act, at the time of termination/retrenchment, workman was entitled to be reinstated in service workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

#3. No settlement was arrived at

arrived at between the parties and as a consequence, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala. The consequence, the matter was referred to the consequence, the matter was referred to the appellant-workman workman duly filed his claim statement statement reiterating his stand as taken by him in the demand notice. The respondent as taken by him . The respondent-management duly filed their written statement to the claim duly filed written statement to the claim petition filed by the appellant- workman. As per the respondent-management, the appellant- workman. As per the respondent workman had only worked for 30 days in the month of August, 2001. It workman had only worked for 30 days in the month of August, 2001 workman had only worked for 30 days in the month of August, 2001 was also the case of the also the case of the respondent-management management that the nature of employment was seasonal. As the appellant-workman had not com- employment was seasonal. As the appellant employment was seasonal. As the appellant pleted 240 days in service in the preceding pleted 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of termination, there was no requirement of compliance of Section termination, there was no requirement of compliance of his termination, there was no requirement of compliance of -2- LPA No.1531 No.1531-2024 (O&M) 25-F of the F of the Act. Accordingly, the claim the claim raised by the appellant- workman is liable to be rejected. The Labour Court, Ambala, decided workman is liable to be rejected. The Labour Court, Ambala, decided workman is liable to be rejected. The Labour Court, Ambala, decided the reference against the appellant- workman, the reference against the appellant workman, vide award dated

06.08.2010. A perusal of the award dated 06.08.2010 06.08.2010. dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, would show that although, the Labour Court, Labour Court, Ambala, would show that although, the Labour Court Labour Court, Ambala, would show that although, the Labour Court has given a finding that the appellant-workman has completed has given a finding that the appellant Ambala has given a finding that the appellant more than 240 days in service in the preceding more than 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his termination termination, however, taking into considerat owever, taking into consideration the fact that the workman was not appointed on a sanctioned post and his workman was not appointed on a sanction appellant-workman was not appointed on a sanction appointment was in violation of the rules appointment ules and Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution onstitution, the appellant-workman was held was held not entitled for protection under Section 25-F of the Act. protection under

#4. Aggrieved against the award against the award dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Labour Court bour Court, the appellant-workman workman filed civil writ petition in this Court being CWP-5971-2013. The abovesaid Court being CWP abovesaid writ petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.01.2024 allowed by the Judge vide judgment dated 05.01.2024. A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would show that the learned A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would Single Judge has taken into consideration the finding given by the Single Judge has taken into consideration the finding given by the Single Judge has taken into consideration the finding given by the Labour Court, Ambala that the appellant Labour Court, Ambala that the appellant-workman has worked more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his than 240 da in the preceding 12 months from the date of his learned Single Judge has held that the termination and on the said basis, learned Single Judge has held that the termination appellant-workman workman was entitled for protection under Section 25 entitled for protection under Section 25-F of the Act. However, taking into consideration the the Act. taking into consideration the nature of his -3- LPA No.1531 No.1531-2024 (O&M) employment and other factors, learned Single Judge granted a employment , learned Single Judge granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs.2 sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of in lieu of his reinstatement.

#5. Aggrieved against abovesaid the abovesaid judgment dated

05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-workman 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal. has filed the present appeal.

#6. The only contentions raised contentions raised by the learned counsel workman are that once, the Labour appearing on behalf of the appellant-workman are that once, the Labour appearing on behalf of the appellant Ambala has given a finding that the appellant-workman had Ambala has given a finding that the appellant Court, Ambala has given a finding that the appellant completed more than 240 days in the preceding completed more than 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his termination, it was mandatory for the respondent- his termination, it was mandatory for the respondent management to comply with the provisions of Section 25 management to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. He submits that submits that the learned Single Judge has also given a finding the learned Single Judge has also given a finding that there was a F of the Act. Once, learned Single was a violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Once, learned Single Judge has has given a finding that there was a violation of given a finding that there was a violation of Section 25-F of in that case, taking into consideration the length of service of in that case, taking into consideration the length of service the Act, in that case, taking into consideration the length of service appellant-workman, the appellant workman, the appellant-workman workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel also submits that even for the sake of arguments, even for the sake of arguments, if it is p it is presumed that taking into consideration the facts of the case, the appellant-workman is entitled consideration the facts of the case, the appellant consideration the facts of the case, the appellant for compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in that case also, the for compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in that case also, for compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in that case also, compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate as it is compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate as compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate as on lesser side taking into consideration length of service on lesser side taking into consideration length of service of the workman. appellant-workman. -4- LPA No.1531 No.1531-2024 (O&M)

#7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no concept of automatic the respondents submits that there is no concept of automatic reinstatement. V tement. Various factors have to be taken into consideration to be taken into consideration before a workman is held entitled for reinstatement before a workman held entitled for reinstatement for violation of provisions of the Act. He also submits that taking into provisions of the Act. He also submits that taking into the provisions of the Act. He also submits that taking into the mode and nature of employment of the appellant- consideration the mode and nature of employment of the appellant consideration workman period appellant-workman appellant service, service, learned Single learned Single Judge has Judge has rightly granted adequate rightly granted adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement. compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

#8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and have perused the record with their able the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance. assistance.

#9. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-workman is concerned, it is a the appellant a well settled law that there is no concept of automatic reinstatement. Various factors have to be no concept of automatic reinstatement. Various factors have to be no concept of automatic reinstatement. Various factors have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of benefit of taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of benefit of taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement where reinstatement where reinstatement where service service service the workman the workman the workman terminated/retrenched on account of violation of provisions of the Act terminated/retrenched on account of violatio terminated/retrenched on account of violatio i.e. the nature and mode of appointment, the availability of work and i.e. the nature and mode of appointment, the availability of work and i.e. the nature and mode of appointment, the availability of work and post, the length of service along with other factors for the said the post, the length of service along with other factors for the said post, the length of service along with other factors for the said purpose. A perusal of facts of the case would show that it is not in purpose. A perusal of facts of the case would show that it is not in purpose. A perusal of facts of the case would show that it is not in dispute that the appellant-workman was employed as a daily dispute that the ap workman was employed as a daily-wager and had worked for approximately 11 years had worked for approximately years and 05 months before his services were terminated and the appellant services were terminated and the appellant-workman is out of service -5- LPA No.1531 No.1531-2024 (O&M) for almost 22 years. It is well settled law that for almost 22 years. settled law that period of a workman remained ined out of service and lapse of time, are and lapse of time, are relevant factors to be for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement and for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement taken for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement back-wages to the workman wages to the workman.

#10. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal Supreme Court in Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal,