Irrigation Departmeqnt, Kota v. Kota

: Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/01/2025

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 21.03.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in LCR No. 349/95, by which the Labour Court has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’) and quashed and set aside the termination order dated 01.02.1992 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the workman back in service with 25% back wages.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the workman raised an industrial dispute against his termination order dated 01.02.1992, before the Labour Court on the ground that he was engaged as daily wager on 13.07.1988 and he continued to [2025:RJ-JP:3741] (2 of 7) [CW-1504/2003] work till 08.03.1992. Counsel submits that the workman has not completed 240 days in a calendar year and this fact was established by the petitioners on record before the Labour Court but overlooking this material aspect of the matter, the award impugned has been passed. Counsel submits that now the workman has attained almost age of superannuation, hence, under these circumstances, at maximum he would be liable to get any amount of compensation and under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners- department and submitted that workman has worked with the petitioners-department for more than three years and his services were terminated without issuing any notice and without giving any compensation in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) and this fact was established on record that he worked with the petitioners-department for more than 240 days in a calendar year, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman was engaged as daily wager with the petitioners-department on

13.07.1988 and he worked with the petitioners till 08.03.1992, the finding of the fact has been recorded in this regard, that the workman has worked with the petitioners-department for more than 240 days in a calendar year and his services were terminated [2025:RJ-JP:3741] (3 of 7) [CW-1504/2003] in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, appreciating all the facts stated above, the award impugned was passed.

6. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether at this stage, the order/award passed by the Labour Court can be implemented as the workman has already reached the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years.

7. It is the settled proposition of law, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court through catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, and if he proves it before the Court by leading evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

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 BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

10. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman [2025:RJ-JP:3741] (4 of 7) [CW-1504/2003] 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.

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.

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 Disputes Act, [2025:RJ-JP:3741] (5 of 7) [CW-1504/2003] (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). 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 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. 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/- [2025:RJ-JP:3741] (6 of 7) [CW-1504/2003] (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. Considering the 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 is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. However, considering that the reinstatement is not automatic, this Court deem it just and proper to enhance the award of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

14. Looking to the fact that the workman has rendered his services with the employer for a period of more than three years, the workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

15. Accordingly, the employer is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement as observed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. If the 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 from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment.

16. The award of the Labour Court dated 21.03.2002 stands modified in the above terms.

17. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. [2025:RJ-JP:3741] (7 of 7) [CW-1504/2003]

18. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. GARIMA /21 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J