In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Man Singh reported in

Judgment

2. Versus Judge Labour Court, Alwar. Regional Forest Officer, Department of Forest, Range Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shubham Gupta for Mr.Rahul Lodha, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/04/2025

1. By way of filing of the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Alwar in L.C.R. No.11/2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court”), by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner-workman against his termination order dated 16.06.1985, has been partly allowed and in spite of his reinstatement, the respondent- Department has been directed to pay a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement.

2. The contents of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was engaged by the respondents on 1.07.1983 and he continued to work with them till 16.06.1985 and his services were terminated without issuing any notice and without paying any [2025:RJ-JP:14619] (2 of 5) [CW-288/2013] amount of compensation, which has resulted in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act of 1947”). After hearing both the sides, the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that there was violation of provisions contained under Section 25- F of the Act of 1947, hence, the impugned termination order dated

16.06.1985 was quashed, but a compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement has been awarded to the petitioner.

3. 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.

4. 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 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

5. 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.

6. 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:- [2025:RJ-JP:14619] (3 of 5) [CW-288/2013] “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 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:14619] (4 of 5) [CW-288/2013]

7. 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.”

8. Considering the above propositions of law in the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation granted to the petitioner-workman is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. [2025:RJ-JP:14619] (5 of 5) [CW-288/2013]

9. Looking to the length of service of the petitioner-workman rendered in the Office of the respondents with effect from

01.07.1983 till 16.06.1985, i.e., more than two years, the petitioner-workman is entitled to get a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lakhs only), in lieu of his reinstatement in service.

10. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. It is made clear that in case, the respondents fail to comply with the aforesaid order passed by this Court within the above stipulated time, i.e., three months, then the petitioner-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.

12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the impugned award stands modified.

13. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Aayush Sharma /136 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J