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

: Mr. K.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : None present JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 27.06.2017 passed by the Labour Court in LCR No.61/2000 by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Naka Guard in the office of Municipal Board, Sangod by the then Executive Officer vide order dated 04.01.1995 and he continued to work on the said post till 27.10.1995 but all of sudden his services were terminated in violation of mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’). Learned counsel submits that an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal where his evidence was recorded and he has established the fact on the record that he has worked (2 of 6) [CW-306/2018] with the respondent-Department for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year. Learned counsel submits that, in the cross-examination, the petitioner-workman admitted that the Octroi Department of Municipal Board was abolished but the persons who were working in the Octroi Department, their services were merged and taken in the office.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no contrary evidence was produced by the respondents and in absence thereof, the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 27.06.2017.

4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents inspite of service.

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

6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petitioner has established on the record that he has worked as Naka Gaurd in Municipal Board, Sangod District Kota w.e.f. 04.01.1995 till

27.10.1995. In the writ petition, the petitioner has given complete description of his working days during his intervening period. If the complete working days of the petitioner are calculated, that comes around 270 days. This fact has been over-looked by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. The other reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that after abolition of the Octroi Department, the post held by the petitioner was also abolished. This cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as the services of the similarly situated persons were (3 of 6) [CW-306/2018] merged by the respondents either in their own office or in other Department.

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 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.

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 (4 of 6) [CW-306/2018] 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 (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.”

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 (5 of 6) [CW-306/2018] 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.”

12. 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 Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court. However, considering that the reinstatement is not automatic and looking to the length of his service, this Court deems it just and proper to award compensation to the workman. (6 of 6) [CW-306/2018]

13. Looking to the total length of service of the petitioner i.e. w.e.f. 04.01.1995 till 27.10.1995, he is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.80,000/-.

14. Accordingly, the employer is directed to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- 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. 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 realization.

15. The award of the Labour Court dated 27.06.2017 stands modified in the above terms.

16. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

17. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Karan/41 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J