Darwaja Bahar, Goal Bagh Road, Bharatpur, Rajasthan v. The Telecom District Engineer, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

Judgment

2. The Telecom District Engineer, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur Through Its Presiding Officer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Abhishek Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, "the Tribunal") in Case No. C.I.T. 68/1995, by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as, "the workman") has been allowed and a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to him in lieu of reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel for the workman submits that the workman was engaged by the respondents in service on 01.11.1982 and he continued his service till 31.08.1984. Counsel submits that the workman worked with the respondent-department for more than 240 days, but without issuing notice and without any payment of compensation his services were terminated, which has resulted in a violation of the mandatory provision contained under Section 25 [2025:RJ-JP:4610] (2 of 7) [CW-9702/2014] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that the workman then raised an industrial dispute by way of filing a claim petition which has been partly allowed and it was found that there was a violation of the mandatory provision contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, but even then i stead of passing the order of reinstatement, a very petty amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the workman, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the workman and submitted that looking to the short span of the service rendered by the workman, the Tribunal has passed a reasoned and cogent order by awarding a lump sum amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Counsel submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper which requires no interference of this Court.

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

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the services of the workman were hired by the respondents, w.e.f. 01.11.1982 till

31.08.1984, this fact is not in dispute that at the time of termination of his services, neither any notice nor any payment of compensation was paid to him and such act of the respondents has resulted in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. This fact was established on the record that the workman has worked with the respondent-department continuously for a period of 240 days in the precedent year, but [2025:RJ-JP:4610] (3 of 7) [CW-9702/2014] looking to the short length of service period of the workman, the Labour Court was of the view that in spite of passing the order of reinstatement, a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall be awarded.

6. This Court finds that looking to the length of service of the workman, i.e., more than one year, the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is inadequate, but the Labour Court has not committed any error in not passing an order of reinstatement of the workman.

7. It is settled law, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F 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 25-F of the Act of 1947, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

7. 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.

8. In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) reported in 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 Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. [2025:RJ-JP:4610] (4 of 7) [CW-9702/2014]

9. In Incharge Officer 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.

10. 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 Disputes Act, [2025:RJ-JP:4610] (5 of 7) [CW-9702/2014] compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (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.”

11. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:4610] (6 of 7) [CW-9702/2014] 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.”

12. Looking to the length of service of the workman rendered in the Office of the respondents with effect from

01.11.1982 till 31.08.1984, i.e., approximately two years and considering the above facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the aforesaid 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 the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner-workman is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakhs only) to the petitioner, in lieu of their reinstatement in service.

13. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakhs only) to the petitioner-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, after adjusting the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court (i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the workman). In case, the enhanced amount is not paid to the petitioner within the above stipulated time i.e. three months, then the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment.

14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Tribunal stands modified, in the above terms and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. [2025:RJ-JP:4610] (7 of 7) [CW-9702/2014]

15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Aayush Sharma /63 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J