Ajmer, Rajasthan v. For

: Ms. Anita Agarwal Mr. Laxmikant For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri with Ms. Bismad Kaur JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 05.05.2001 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. By passing the award dated 05.05.2001, the Tribunal has allowed the statement of claim filed by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) against his termination order dated 10.10.1991 whereby petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman back in service with continuity along-with 50% back-wages.

3. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman was appointed as Peon with the petitioner-Bank on 17.01.1990 and he was engaged in service by the Bank till 10.10.1991 but he was [2025:RJ-JP:13835] (2 of 6) [CW-3454/2001] removed from service without any notice and without making any payment of compensation which has resulted in violation of mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”), hence under these circumstances, he raised an industrial dispute by way of filing a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides that the workman has worked with the petitioner-Bank for more than 240 days in a preceding calendar year and there was non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, hence his termination order was quashed.

4. The case of the petitioner is that workman was never engaged by them rather he was kept for operating generator for a particular time but this fact was not appreciated by the Tribunal while entertaining the claim petition submitted by the workman.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent- workman submitted that the workman was not engaged for operating generator rather he was appointed as Peon and all kind of work as that of Peon was performed by him in different branches including counting of cash etc. Learned counsel submits that evidence in this regard was led before the Tribunal and after appreciating the same, the Tribunal has passed the said award by recording reasons, which requires no interference of this Court.

6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusing the material available on the record which indicates that the work of Class-IV/Peon was taken by the petitioner from the workman in different branches [2025:RJ-JP:13835] (3 of 6) [CW-3454/2001] and finding of fact has been recorded in this regard without following due process of law and the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, his services were terminated, hence his termination order has been quashed and set aside with a direction of his reinstatement.

7. This Court finds no error in the finding of fact but now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is whether looking to the length of service rendered by the workman which is more than one year but less than two years, the order of reinstatement can be passed or not?

8. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

9. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25-F of the Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

10. In Incharge Officer and Ors. Vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. [2025:RJ-JP:13835] (4 of 6) [CW-3454/2001]

11. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. Disputes Act,

34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in [2025:RJ-JP:13835] (5 of 6) [CW-3454/2001] the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.”

12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be `1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been `2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair.

4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of`2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.”

13. Looking to the length of service of the respondent-workman rendered to the petitioner-bank, i.e., more than one year and less [2025:RJ-JP:13835] (6 of 6) [CW-3454/2001] than two years and considering the above facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to award the workman a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakh only), as compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service.

14. Accordingly, the petitioner-Bank is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the said amount is not paid to the workman within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the workman would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment.

15. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court dated 05.05.2001 stands modified, in the above mentioned terms and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Karan/6 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J