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

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Forest Department, Having Its Office, Alwar, Rajasthan

2. Regional Forest Officer Range Alwar, Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Alwar, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made against the impugned award dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) while deciding Case LCR No. 422/2006 by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) has been partly allowed and while quashing and setting aside his termination order, a direction has been issued to the respondents to pay lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement.

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:13434] (2 of 6) [CW-9874/2018]

3. The contents of the writ petition and the material available on the record indicate that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1977 as labour and he continued to work with the respondents till 29.11.1983 and by oral order his services were discontinued from the said date.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the workman approached the Labour Court by way of raising an industrial dispute indicating therein that without following due process of law and without issuing any notice and making any payment of compensation, the order impugned has been passed in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”).

5. The aforesaid claim of the workman was opposed by the respondents but after considering the material available on the record, the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the workman has worked with the respondents for a period of around six years and his termination order was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 but looking to the fact that the dispute was raised after a delay of more than 18 years and it had been 34 years since the workman was terminated, the Tribunal was of the view that the workman is entitled to get lumpsum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation in lieu of his reinstatement.

6. Considering the finding so recorded by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was right in not issuing directions for reinstatement of the workman as the dispute was raised by him after a delay of more than 18 years but looking to the length of service rendered by the workman with the [2025:RJ-JP:13434] (3 of 6) [CW-9874/2018] respondents, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is a meagre amount and the same is not adequate.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:13434] (4 of 6) [CW-9874/2018] 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.”

10. 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 `s2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and [2025:RJ-JP:13434] (5 of 6) [CW-9874/2018] 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.”

11. Looking to the length of service of the workman rendered with the respondents with effect from 1977 till November, 1983, i.e., more than six years 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 amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is inadequate and the petitioner is entitled to get a lump-sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lakhs only), in lieu of his reinstatement in service.

12. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of three months from today. In case, the said amount is not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the petitioner 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. [2025:RJ-JP:13434] (6 of 6) [CW-9874/2018]

13. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court dated 26.02.2018 stands modified, in the above terms and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

14. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Karan/57 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J